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
Lorsque des employés bénéficient d’un régime d’intéressement long terme, leur fin d’emploi sans motif sérieux peut soulever de nombreuses questions en ce qui a trait à leurs droits découlant dudit régime.
Les employés vont souvent tenter de réclamer une indemnité pour l’ensemble des avantages qui leur avaient été octroyés avant leur fin d’emploi, même lorsque
It is generally accepted that the common law will imply a term of “reasonable notice” into a contract of employment which makes no provision for termination notice. However, this general rule was displaced by the case of Brennan v Kangaroo Island Council [2013] SASCFC 151 which found that reasonable notice may not be implied in circumstances where an employee is covered by a modern award which prescribes a period of termination notice. Recent cases have considered whether s 117 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which prescribes a minimum period of termination notice, should also displace the general rule. Whilst this was supported by the South Australian District Court in Kuczmarski v Ascot Administration P/L [2016] SADC 65, in the more recent case of McGowan v Direct Mail and Marketing Pty Ltd [2016] FCCA 2227 Judge McNab of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (FCCA) confirmed that s 117 provides minimum periods of termination notice only, and consequently does not displace a right to implied reasonable notice.
The recent decision of Miller v. A.B.M. Canada Inc., 2014 ONSC 4062 involved a claim for wrongful dismissal damages in which the Plaintiff successfully argued that a contractual termination provision was unenforceable.
On the facts, the employee signed an employment contract at the time of hire stating that, “Regular employees may be terminated at
The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in IBM Canada Limited v Richard Waterman, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 985, considered whether employees’ pension benefits should be deducted from damages for wrongful dismissal. The majority concluded, on the facts of this case, that no such deduction should occur.
The company dismissed a 65-year-old employee