YLaw
180 Dundas Street West, Suite 2601 M5G 1Z8 Toronto, ON, Canada

WHAT DO YOU THINK? employer loses Blake was hired by Widgetron as a regional sales manager. 8 months into the relationship, Blake was terminated, without cause and provided a severance package of two weeks pay, as per ESA minimums. ... Widgetron's employment contract stipulated that upon termination without cause, ESA minimum apply. The same contract, however, was silent on the possibility of termination with cause. Should Blake sue for wrongful dismissal and seek damages in excess of the two week termination pay? 1. No because the contract was clear with respect to termination without cause. ESA minimums apply. 2. No because Blake had not yet worked one year. 3. Yes because the employment contract was not holistically compliant with the ESA. 4. Yes because Blake had an important role within the company and had passed the probation period. A recent decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal lends clarity to the status of employment contracts in Ontario. The decision confirmed that employment contracts must be read as holistically coherent with respect to all possible construals of terminations. An employer cannot rely on part of an employment contract which is compliant with the law if other parts of the same contract are not compliant. In a case of anything less than wholesale compliance, the contract will be voided and common law standards will prevail. To understand this interesting precedent and how it affects over 90% of Ontario employers - at their risk, see: https://ylaw.legal//area/employment-law/employee-contracts #legal #paralegal #employmentcontract #employer #employee #wrongfuldismissal #damagesinlieu

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Landlord and Tenant Board We are experiencing an unprecedented time for the LTB. The LTB will soon be re-opening, which, in principle, will allow some landlords to evict some tenants. At the same time, Bill 184, which was crafted to make several substantive changes to the Residential Tenancies Act, is being rolled out with some changes to the LTB now in place and some changes pending.... There are a wide range of opinions about the LTB generally and about the impending changes. All of these opinions cannot all be correct. What is your view? 1. The LTB is a plot against landlords which is obvious because it is so one-sided in favour of tenants. 2. The LTB is being changed to give landlords even more power, which they invariably use to take advantage of tenants. 3. The LTB is a set of rules and guidelines which is publicly available for everyone to read. Everyone should know the rules and, for that reason, it cannot be unfair. 4. With the RTA, there would be bedlam on the streets akin to the legacy of Irish potato famine of 175 years ago. Ylaw can respond to your comments. Law is a strange entity as it superimposes form onto what may be otherwise random, unfair, or formless. Its worth examining one's point of view. For help in understanding facets if the LTB, please peruse: https://ylaw.legal/EN/covid19-legal-issues #legal #paralegal #LTB #RTA #eviction #law #landlord #tenant

WHAT DO YOU THINK? income property risk The Gestalts bought a house with a long term view to using it as an income property and then occupying it as a primary residence in the future. Between the time they bought the house and the time they wished to occupy the house, there were 8 provincial elections and 4 major shifts in provincial government.... Thirty-three years after purchasing the house, at the time the Gestalts intended to occupy it, there were seven (7) tenants residing in it. Due to the economics of their situation and, more importantly, unanticipated changes to the law over time, the Gestalts never occupied their house and were forced to sell it at 25% below market value. What happened? The read an interesting and true case study which speaks to risks of income property investment, see: https://ylaw.legal//landlord-tenant-disp/whose-house-is-it #legal #paralegal #incomeproperty #marketvalue #landlord #tenant

WHAT DO YOU THINK? employer loses Blake was hired by Widgetron as a regional sales manager. 8 months into the relationship, Blake was terminated, without cause and provided a severance package of two weeks pay, as per ESA minimums. ... Widgetron's employment contract stipulated that upon termination without cause, ESA minimum apply. The same contract, however, was silent on the possibility of termination with cause. Should Blake sue for wrongful dismissal and seek damages in excess of the two week termination pay? 1. No because the contract was clear with respect to termination without cause. ESA minimums apply. 2. No because Blake had not yet worked one year. 3. Yes because the employment contract was not holistically compliant with the ESA. 4. Yes because Blake had an important role within the company and had passed the probation period. A recent decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal lends clarity to the status of employment contracts in Ontario. The decision confirmed that employment contracts must be read as holistically coherent with respect to all possible construals of terminations. An employer cannot rely on part of an employment contract which is compliant with the law if other parts of the same contract are not compliant. In a case of anything less than wholesale compliance, the contract will be voided and common law standards will prevail. To understand this interesting precedent and how it affects over 90% of Ontario employers - at their risk, see: https://ylaw.legal//area/employment-law/employee-contracts #legal #paralegal #employmentcontract #employer #employee #wrongfuldismissal #damagesinlieu

WHAT DO YOU THINK? termination for cause invalid Q: When is an employment contract not an employment contract? A: When just one of the clauses breaches the law.... Employers ought to become aware of a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision that will likely render their existing employment contract invalid. An invalid employment contract makes successful wrongful dismissal litigation against employers more likely. In the case at bar, an employment contract clause spelled out terms for termination without cause but breached the Employment Standards Act (ESA) with respect to termination with cause. The Appeal Court ruled that, "An employment contract must be interpreted as a whole and not on a piecemeal basis. The correct analytical approach is to determine whether the termination provisions in an employment agreement read as a whole violate the ESA. Recognizing the power imbalance between employees and employers...courts should focus on whether the employer has, in restricting an employee's common law rights on termination, violated the employee's ESA rights. (The) courts...will not enforce termination provisions that are in whole or in part illegal...it is irrelevant whether the termination provisions are found in one place in the agreement or separated, or whether the provisions are by their terms otherwise linked." Many, if not most, employment contracts fail to adequately articulate termination with cause provisions thus rendering the entire contract invalid. To review the case at bar, see, https://www.canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/71539 #legal #paralegal #employmentlaw #employmentcontract #wrongfuldismissal #termination #litigation

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Defective Workmanship Greg hired Fred and Sons to build a house. Subsequently, Greg sold the house to Quentin. A home inspection found no flaws in the house. Shortly thereafter, Quentin started some renovations on the house. The renovators discovered that the walls and roof trusses were misaligned. There was, therefore, a question of the house collapsing. ... Is there liability in this situation? 1. Once a house is sold after a building inspection, any problems accrue to the house inspector. Quentin might be able to get a few hundred dollars back from the house inspector. 2. Fred and Sons were hired by Greg. Greg was, therefore an employer and, so, Greg is vicariously liable for faulty house construction. Greg should have been more careful when hiring Fred and Sons. 3. Fred and Sons were independent contractors, which lets Greg off the hook for liability. 4. The workmanship is defective only if there is probable, imminent danger of the house collapsing. A house builder will be, in a situation like this, an independent contractor and, so any liability will fall to the builder. The house inspection will not relieve the house builder of potential liability. The determination of liability will turn on the probability of imminent danger of injury. To see an interesting case of the above in law, go to: https://www.canlii.org//d/2013/2013abca96/2013abca96.html #legal #paralegal #defectiveworkmanship #tort #negligence #houseinspection #litigation

WHAT DO YOU THINK? termination for cause invalid Q: When is an employment contract not an employment contract? A: When just one of the clauses breaches the law.... Employers ought to become aware of a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision that will likely render their existing employment contract invalid. An invalid employment contract makes successful wrongful dismissal litigation against employers more likely. In the case at bar, an employment contract clause spelled out terms for termination without cause but breached the Employment Standards Act (ESA) with respect to termination with cause. The Appeal Court ruled that, "An employment contract must be interpreted as a whole and not on a piecemeal basis. The correct analytical approach is to determine whether the termination provisions in an employment agreement read as a whole violate the ESA. Recognizing the power imbalance between employees and employers...courts should focus on whether the employer has, in restricting an employee's common law rights on termination, violated the employee's ESA rights. (The) courts...will not enforce termination provisions that are in whole or in part illegal...it is irrelevant whether the termination provisions are found in one place in the agreement or separated, or whether the provisions are by their terms otherwise linked." Many, if not most, employment contracts fail to adequately articulate termination with cause provisions thus rendering the entire contract invalid. To review the case at bar, see, https://www.canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/71539 #legal #paralegal #employmentlaw #employmentcontract #wrongfuldismissal #termination #litigation

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Defective Workmanship Greg hired Fred and Sons to build a house. Subsequently, Greg sold the house to Quentin. A home inspection found no flaws in the house. Shortly thereafter, Quentin started some renovations on the house. The renovators discovered that the walls and roof trusses were misaligned. There was, therefore, a question of the house collapsing. ... Is there liability in this situation? 1. Once a house is sold after a building inspection, any problems accrue to the house inspector. Quentin might be able to get a few hundred dollars back from the house inspector. 2. Fred and Sons were hired by Greg. Greg was, therefore an employer and, so, Greg is vicariously liable for faulty house construction. Greg should have been more careful when hiring Fred and Sons. 3. Fred and Sons were independent contractors, which lets Greg off the hook for liability. 4. The workmanship is defective only if there is probable, imminent danger of the house collapsing. A house builder will be, in a situation like this, an independent contractor and, so any liability will fall to the builder. The house inspection will not relieve the house builder of potential liability. The determination of liability will turn on the probability of imminent danger of injury. To see an interesting case of the above in law, go to: https://www.canlii.org//d/2013/2013abca96/2013abca96.html #legal #paralegal #defectiveworkmanship #tort #negligence #houseinspection #litigation

WHAT DO YOU THINK? agreement or contract? The Rentingtons were struggling to pay the rent during the pandemic. Mr. Gerald Lordly, the landlord, was counting on the rent to pay the mortgage. Both sides wanted to work something out. Mr. Lordly was inclined to give the Rentingtons a temporary reprieve by reducing the rent owed by 50% over the coming months. The Rentingtons are only too glad to accept Mr. Lordly's offer but what are the limits to Lordly's generosity?... 1. The rent reduction must be for a term of 90 days (3 months) or less to be temporary 2. The Rentingtons should just start paying the lower amount and be happy about it 3. It doesn't matter: there are no LTB notice forms pertaining to rent reductions because its not within LTB jurisdiction 4. Temporary measures should be established on a "handshake agreement" because its more friendly. The Landlord and Tenant Board oversees the application of the Residential Tenancies Act as it applies to landlord and tenant matters and disputes. As a detailed and comprehensive statute, there is, often, no need for the parties to sign a lease agreement. But temporary rent relief is a legal condition whereby an agreement in principle should be supported in writing by a contract established between landlord and tenant. From the landlord's point of view, the rent relief might be kept to 90 days or less to ensure that the value of the rent owed eventually remains at its current value. From the tenant's point of view, accepting rent relief without a written contract could leave them vulnerable to being sued for eviction due to non-payment of rent, via an N4 notice by the landlord. From any perspective, an agreement to agree should be enshrined in a contract so that the the agreement is kept "agreeable" to all parties. To see more about agreements as compared to contracts, see: https://ylaw.legal//area/breach-of-contract/agree-to-agree #legal #paralegal #contract #LTB #landlord #tenant #rent

WHAT DO YOU THINK? harassing collectors Can much be done about collection agencies harassing you?... 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. Yes Read more: https://ylaw.legal//debts-failure-of-/harassing-collectors

WHAT DO YOU THINK? suing for disappointment Litigating for emotional injuries is becoming increasingly possible. Are medical reports required? Traditionally, yes. But courts - including small claims court - are now more likely to take other factors into account:... Was the cause of the emotional distress intentional? Was the stress prolonged? Were expected emotional benefits frustrated? Various contextual factors can eclipse the need for medical documentation. For more on legal remedies for emotional distress, see: https://ylaw.legal/EN/blawg/stress-injury

WHAT DO YOU THINK? COVID firing Stan was an employee of Duracrate Inc. for 11 years. Bad economic times led to a temporary layoff with no pay of Stan. Stan had never signed an employee contract. ... What can Stan do? 1. Duracrate can layoff any employee for up to 13 weeks, as per the ESA, without pay or notice so Stan has no recourse. 2. Stan doesn't have a contract which refers to being laid off so the ESA standard doesn't apply. Stan can sue for constructive dismissal. 3. If Stan sues for constructive dismissal, Duracrate can offer him his job back which would cancel the lawsuit. 4. If Duracrate offers Stan his job back due to the lawsuit, Stan is not obliged to take it and can add damages due to "poisoned work environment" to the lawsuit. In Stolze v Addario et. al., 1997 CanLII 764 (ON CA), the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the situation of a temporarily laid-off employee whose employment contract did not permit the employer to invoke an unpaid pay-off in the express or implied terms. In the absence of evidence of a policy or practice with respect to lay-offs, the layoff constituted a constructive dismissal. Stan could sue for constructive dismissal and/or a poisoned work environment depending on the specific circumstances. To see more about constructive dismissal, see: https://ylaw.legal///employment-law/constructive-dismissal #legal #paralegal #employmentcontract #employer #employee #construtivedismissal #poisonedwork #wrongfuldismissal

WHAT DO YOU THINK? money owed Litigating for money owed due to contract breach, negligence, or other damages can seem daunting. This year, the ceiling for claims for money owed in Small Claims Court increased by 40% to $35,000.00. Now, the simpler and more efficient processes of Small Claims Court may make sense to you if you want to sue for money owed.... See: https://ylaw.legal//small-claims-cou/monetary-jurisdiction #legal #paralegal #moneyowed #damages #contractbreach #negligence #poorworkmanship

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Landlord forced to sell The Landleys bought a house in 1985 as a income property, renting it out, and expecting to retire in it. By 2019, they were forced to sell their house at well below market value. They never occupied their own house. What went wrong is that they failed to understand or keep abreast of current laws as they affect landlords and tenants.... Read about this case and take it as warning that not only is being a landlord a business but is a heavily regulated business. See: https://ylaw.legal//landlord-tenant-disp/whose-house-is-it #legal #paralegal #landlord #tenant #marketvalue #RTA #LTB

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Can I litigate now? Carmen wants to sue Bud. But the courts are closed. What can Carmen do?... 1. Carmen can forget about suing Bud; things can't get much worse so why pile on with more bad news? 2. Carmen should focus on more important tasks since the courts are closed. 3. Carmen can use the downtime to figure out a strategy with the extended family since everyone has too much time on their hands anyway. 4 Carmen can file a claim with the court because it will speed up the litigation process in the long run. Yes, the courts are closed, which will created a back-log of cases when the courts eventually re-open. But courts are currently accepting the filing of claims. Being prepared in court is half the battle. Seeking legal advice now, filing early, and getting in front of pending log-jams in court may be wise. To read more about court preparedness, see: https://ylaw.legal//se/small-claims-court/winning-strategy #legal #paralegal #court #litigation

WHAT DO YOU THINK? COVID refund Learn-arama Business School was running several business courses in 2020, before the pandemic was declared. In late March, by government order, the school shut down the classes and offices of the school and began to provide online instruction via ZOOM. Therefore, 50% or more of each business course was provided without interpersonal interaction in and out of class, and without dedicated field trips of interest to the student and pertinent to ...the curricula. The cost to each student per course was $16,000.00. While the course was, ultimately, delivered according to pre-established criteria set by the Ministry of Education, the context of the course was, arguably, compromised by the lack of involvement of the students with each other or on field trips. That is, the course was not delivered entirely as promised and, furthermore, the school reduced its operating costs dramatically by shutting down. How can the students get a rebate from the school to account for the degraded and inferior classroom circumstances? 1. If the contract had a force majeure clause citing pandemics, the student may be out of luck 2. Each student could sue for 20% of the course cost or about $3,200.00 3. A class of 30 students could sue in groups of 10 students per claim or $32,000.00 per claim 4. Students are statute barred from litigating because they don't work and contribute to the economy. It is highly unlikely that the school would have a suitable force majeure clause exempting them from responsibility to perform due to a pandemic. And students are able to litigate regardless of their employment status or taxes paid. The outstanding issue, then, would be the economic feasibility of litigating. Each student litigating in small claims court for $3,200.00 would be like a break-even proposition at best if the matter went to trial -- perhaps not worth the time and trouble. But, in a case such as this, 10 students could act as joint Plaintiffs and reduce the cost of litigating by 90% per student. Therefore, instead of paying $2,000.00 to $3,000.00 per claim to seek an award of $3,200.00, by combining their efforts, each student would pay $200.00 to $300.00 thus mitigating the costs and risk of loss to each student. To read about monetary jurisdiction and how Plaintiffs can work together, see: https://ylaw.legal//small-claims-cou/monetary-jurisdiction #refund #legal #paralegal #school #covid #pandemic #corona #virus #rebate #plaintiff #monetaryjurisdiction #expense #law #smallclaimscourt