When it comes to termination clauses, a single word can make the difference between a modest payout and a significant severance award. The Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Bertsch v. Datastealth Inc. (2025 ONCA 379) is a reminder that airtight drafting can protect employers, while unclear wording can expose them to major liability.

When a long-serving employee is dismissed, the law requires them to take reasonable steps to look for new work. This is called the “duty to mitigate.” But what happens when an employer argues that the employee didn’t try hard enough? The Ontario Court of Appeal recently gave a clear answer in Pateman v. Koolatron Corporation, 2025 ONCA 224.

In Coscarella Dentistry Professional Corporation v. Harvey, 2025 ONCA 118, the Ontario Court of Appeal considered what happens when a professional leaves a practice and informs patients of the move.

The Ontario Superior Court’s recent decision in Miller v. AlayaCare Inc. serves as a crucial reminder for employers about the enforceability of termination clauses and the potential impact of inducement in wrongful dismissal cases. Despite only six months of service, the plaintiff was awarded a 14-month notice period, highlighting the risks associated with improperly drafted employment agreements and recruitment practices.

The Ontario Divisional Court recently made this crystal clear in Metrolinx v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1587 (2024 ONSC 1900). In this case, offensive messages about female employees were shared in a private group chat outside of work. One affected employee who saw the messages did not want to file a complaint, but the employer investigated anyway.

When the matter went to court, the Divisional Court confirmed that once harassment is known to the employer, the obligation to investigate is triggered.

Hiring contractors can be a cost-effective way for small businesses to manage workload fluctuations and access specialized skills. However, misclassifying employees as independent contractors can lead to significant legal and financial repercussions. We prepared the following best practices to help small business owners navigate this complex area and ensure compliance with the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA).

In L.N. v. Ray Daniel Salon & Spa, 2024 HRTO 179, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (HRTO) issued a significant ruling, finding that paying non-citizen workers below minimum wage is unlawful citizenship-based discrimination, highlighting the serious consequences for employers who exploit vulnerable newcomers.

Ontario's Working for Workers Four Act, 2023, introduces significant changes that impact all employers. From new requirements for job postings to updated wage protection rules and enhanced benefits for injured workers, these updates demand immediate action. Discover the essential steps you need to take to ensure compliance and effectively adapt to these new regulations. Read on to stay ahead of the curve and safeguard your organization against potential pitfalls.