Dans une décision récente[1], la Cour d’appel du Québec rappelle qu’il n’y a pas seulement le motif du congédiement qui importe, mais également la façon dont on y procède. En effet, congédier un employé cavalièrement peut avoir un impact sur le délai de congé raisonnable (aussi appelé préavis de fin d’emploi) et
The Ontario Superior Court recently held that a dismissed employee who received Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) payments immediately following his dismissal should not receive less in wrongful dismissal damages on account of the fact he received the emergency benefit.
The decision underscores the point that CERB does not affect an employer’s post-termination
Dans une décision rendue le 11 juin 2020[1], la Cour supérieure du Québec a accueilli en partie une action collective à l’encontre de la Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec – Construction (FTQ‑C). Cette action collective vise, à titre de membres du groupe, les travailleurs et les employeurs comptant moins
Legal context
French employment law imposes a duty of care on the employer requiring it to ensure that the health and safety of its employees is not impacted as a result of their work. Such duty is interpreted very broadly by the courts, which only allow employers to escape liability in very limited circumstances such
Legal context
French employment law strictly prohibits acts of moral harassment within a company, employers being required to take all measures necessary to prevent such situations from occurring in the first place. Applicable sanctions in the event of breach of such prohibition can be particularly severe since the employer can face penal sanctions as well
Last month, the Commission des relations du travail (“CRT”) rendered a decision following a finding of unjust dismissal that serves as a good reminder of the scope and types of awards that can be ordered when a complaint is deemed well-founded.
In this case, the facts were simple: the complainant, a pharmacist, was