Edmonton Employment Law

Introduction:  An Old Tale In the early days of the 20th Century, two ships, the Port Caledonia  and the Anna , were sheltering from a storm in Holyhead Harbour in Wales, when the Port Caledonia  came free of its berth and began drifting toward the Anna .  The master of the Port Caledonia  called for a tug, but was quoted an exorbitant fee, " £1,000 or no rope".  After protesting, he agreed to pay the fee out of desperation - but the courts later reduced the fee by 80%, because the original bargain was so inequitable, so unjust, and so unreasonable that it could not be allowed to stand. In general, Canadian courts respect freedom of contract.  However, there are a variety of circumstances, which are traditionally quite narrow, in which they will decline to enforce the terms of an agreement between parties. On Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller , which will have significant ramifications ...

Here's a dime-a-dozen scenario: Employee gets dismissed without notice.  She sues her employer, but in the mean time, she applies for EI benefits - after all, she needs the cash.  When she settles her wrongful dismissal claim, Service Canada looks at the income as creating an 'overpayment' - she may have to repay some or all of the EI benefits she received. I had assumed that the same would be true of CERB.  Now that I'm looking more closely, I'm not so sure. You probably know that you can't get CERB benefits if you're making more than $1000 in the eligibility period, right?  Well, at the margins, there's always a question of what kind of income gets included in that.  So we look at the definition of 'income' for the purpose of the eligibility exclusion at section 6(1)(b) of the CERB Act ...and it turns out that it's really narrow. they do not receive, in respect of the consecutive days on which they have ceased working, (i)  sub...

The CERB program has its flaws:  There are good argument that it isn't enough and it's underinclusive , and I've written before about how it strips out some of the best features of the well-established EI program (which works, even though it has its own problems). Problems are understandable. This is a complex policy initiative rolled out in a rush, to deal with a crisis. Perfection isn't the standard here, and everyone's largely agreed that something like CERB was necessary to address the pandemic. Andrew Scheer has raised another concern about the implementation of CERB:  The $1000 income cutoff creates a problem for people phasing back into the workplace. CERB eligibility has some pretty rigid criteria, and among them is a requirement that the individual not make more than $1000 in the 4 week eligibility period (there's a different treatment for the initial claim period, though).  For the sake of simplicity, let's call this $250/week.  If you'r...

One of the common issues I've been seeing pop up - I've dealt with it a number of times in recent days - is employers asking employees to sign new employment contracts with reduced compensation and/or hours. There are a bunch of different variations of this: Some expressly threaten a full layoff if you don't sign; some impliedly threaten it.  Some are reducing compensation for 'furloughed' employees to just equal the amount of the subsidy available from CEWS; some are reducing compensation for actively employed workers. But let's talk for a minute about these in general terms. Why Do Employers Want Employees to Sign? Earlier in the pandemic, I posted a commentary that employers may be liable for constructive dismissal if they send their workers home without pay .  There's really an open question as whether or not some employers might get relief against that doctrine because of the extraordinary nature of the pandemic (we call it 'frustration of ...

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are going to be a number of areas of our infrastructure that will undergo close scrutiny.  One of the casualties of the pandemic will be our EI framework. EI has never been perfect.  Indeed, for several months, I've had a draft blog entry on the go where I argue that EI and CPP contributions are regressive taxes.  (In a nutshell, the point is this:  On your first 50-something thousand dollars of income, you and your employer both pay a pretty penny into EI and CPP.  After that, you don't.  Which means that, within certain income classes - that vary from Province to Province - higher earners get to keep a higher proportion of their gross income.) And that whole "employee versus independent contractor" perennial controversy?  In Canada, the most common measurable benefit to an employer (/payor) under such an arrangement is the avoidance of EI and CPP contributions (though the CPP portion generally just gets...