Edmonton Employment Law

Last week, we discussed the probationary dismissal of Ms. Dalskog .  Yesterday, another similar case was released by the Alberta Provincial Court, again out of Lethbridge . Mr. Christensen was hired as a senior accountant by Tollestrup - a group of companies that operates a number of Tim Hortons franchises.  He began working on July 6, 2017, and was dismissed as of September 27, 2017. There are parallels to the Dalskog case:  Like Ms. Dalskog, Mr. Christensen argued that he was not appropriately trained and did not receive the necessary support or feedback from the employer.  In this case, however, the Court did not accept that position. The employer argued that the termination decision was motivated by errors and missed deadlines in Mr. Christensen's work, and that he was not the right "fit" for the organization. On the Court's summary of the evidence, the conclusions are not surprising:  On the one hand, Christensen justified omissions in his work on the bas

Ms. Dalskog was hired as Executive Director of the Crowsnest Pass Ecomuseum Trust Society in April 2017, pursuant to a contract that specified a six month probationary period.  A little over 5 months later, she was dismissed. The reasons were myriad.  There was conflict between her and some of the Board members, and they were not happy with her performance, including that she missed the deadline to apply for an $18,000 grant, and there were budget overruns in certain areas.  However, there were other important facts as well:  The Society had promised on-the-job training, which was never provided.  The Society had promised to hire a bookkeeper, because they understood when hiring Ms. Dalskog that she did not have bookkeeping experience, and they failed to do so - which meant that a large portion of her time was spend working with the books, instead of the job that she was actually hired to do.  She required and sought advice and direction from Board members regarding the completion of

One of the most lively issues in Ontario employment law, over the last several years, has been the impact of limiting language in termination clauses on benefits :  If an employment contract provides for termination without notice upon only payment of money in accordance with Ontario's Employment Standards Act, 2000 , does this suggest that benefit coverage will be terminated immediately? That would be a problem, because the ESA  itself requires employers to maintain benefit coverage through the statutory minimum notice period. Fellow law blogger Sean Bawden has covered this issue in some detail over the course of several years .  While there have been cases where the courts have generously interpreted references to the statute as implying an intention to comply with all obligations thereunder, the current state of the law appears to be that the Ontario Court of Appeal expects a great deal of clarity from such termination clauses. Given the amount of discussion this issue has

It has been increasingly common, for some time now, for long term incentive plans (LTIPs) and bonus plans to include 'forfeiture' clauses:  If you are not actively employed as at the date when the bonus is paid out, or when your stock options vest, etc., you have no entitlement under the plan. In other words, if you're working for your employer for years and years, and finally a million dollars worth of stock options are going to vest on June 1, but you resign your employment on May 31, you get nothing.  Or if you're fired for cause on May 31.  Or if you're dismissed on working notice, with an end date of May 31. The ongoing legal controversy has been what happens in the event of a not-for-cause dismissal without notice. There is a tension here:  On the one hand, in the absence of an express contractual term to the contrary, employees are entitled to reasonable notice of dismissal pursuant to an implied term of the employment contract, or pay in lieu the