Water Cooler Justice

In this episode, Chris and Sarah, alongside Mitchell Rose, Stuart Rudner, and Sean Bawden, discuss the case of Wilshire v. Olympic Wholesale, focusing on the complexities of employment law, particularly around just cause and the importance of proper investigations. The panel explores the implications of the case outcome and the lessons learned regarding employer responsibilities and employee rights. The conversation delves into the complexities of employment law, particularly focusing on the definitions of 'cause' and 'willful misconduct' in termination cases. The panel discusses the implications of recent court decisions, including the Wilshire case, and the ongoing debate surrounding the Wallace bump in damages.

Takeaways

• Importance of thorough investigations
• Understanding just cause in employment law Complexity of Employment Law
• Impact of Court Decisions

Chapters

• 00:00 Introduction to Water Cooler Justice
• 03:00 Case Overview: Wilshire v. Olympic Wholesale
• 05:54 Investigation Process and Challenges
• 09:00 The Role of Management in Employment Disputes
• 12:09 Understanding Just Cause and Its Implications
• 14:53 Mediation and Resolution Strategies
• 17:45 Evidentiary Threshold for Cause Termination
• 21:06 Outcome of the Case and Its Significance
• 27:35 Understanding Cause in Employment Law
• 30:43 The Role of Willful Misconduct
• 33:03 Analyzing the Wilshire Case Outcome
• 39:54 The Wallace Bump Controversy
• 43:09 Implications of Judicial Decisions
• 52:25 Exploring Moral Damages vs. Notice Periods

Is the landscape of employment law shifting? Two recently released Court of Appeal decisions — Baker v Van Dolder's Home Team Inc. and Li v Wayfair Canada ULC — are getting a lot of promotion, but do these appeals stand for the proposition that employment law has changed? Our panelists explore what these decisions really say about contractual interpretation and consider the practical implications for employers and employees alike. Ride along as some of Toronto's top lawyers dig into the mechanics of the legal arguments.

The episode features a discussion on the case of Adelman versus IBM Canada, focusing on the entitlement to bonuses, RSUs, and damages post-termination. The panelists discuss the uncertainty and challenges in employment litigation, the interpretation of saving provisions, and the distinction between stock options and RSUs. They also explore the implications of RSUs as wages from employment and the need for clarity in severance provisions to attract business to Canada.

“Employment income earned during the notice period is generally to be treated as mitigation of loss”.

Join employment law leaders Nina Gupta, Ellen Lowe and Chris Robertson as they delve into the pivotal Williamson v. Brandt Tractor case, reshaping our understanding of mitigation and wrongful termination payments. Discover why the evidentiary threshold for just cause is challenging, how recent case law impacts mitigation earnings, and the strategic importance of managing notice periods. This episode offers essential insights for employment lawyers, HR professionals, and business owners navigating the evolving legal landscape. Don't miss this insightful breakdown.

Barry Fisher and Matthew Dewar join Chris Robertson and Sarah Goodenough to discuss Kirchmair v EXP Global Inc. This episode dives into a high stakes, alleged constructive dismissal and offers a nuanced analysis on issues surrounding contractual termination provisions, various bonus structures, damages tied to incentive compensation, and when employer conduct crosses the threshold into moral and punitive liability.

Is there a case you would like to hear us talk about? Do you have a story of workplace drama you would like to share with our panel? Reach out to us at [email protected].

Chris and Sarah sit down with special guest, Rich Dias to explore the fascinating intersection of macroeconomics with wrongful dismissal disputes. From the famous Bardal factors and reasonable notice periods, to unemployment rates and economic cycles - this episode truly has it all.

Whether you're an employment lawyer, an economics nerd, or simply a curious mind drawn to the unexpected overlap between two seemingly distinct worlds - this one's for you!

Rich is a global macro strategist with over 15 years of experience working for institutions in both Canada and the U.K. He is also a co-host on the Loonie Hour - a podcast dedicated to breaking down Canadian and global economics. Currently he is based in Montreal with IceCap Asset Management as a Global Strategist.

"Two compensation schemes that look almost identical on paper can lead to wildly different outcomes.”

Chris Robertson and Sarah Goodenough are joined by employment lawyers Ellen Low and Sean Bawden to unpack the murky and increasingly high-stakes world of restricted stock units (RSUs). In this episode, the panel compares Wigdor v. Facebook Canada and Liggett v. Veeva Software System, two recent Ontario cases involving equity compensation, termination, and notice, with sharply divergent results.

The conversation explores why RSUs continue to sit in a legal grey zone, how courts are navigating the tension between the Employment Standards Act and common law reasonable notice, and why precise drafting (or the lack of it) can mean the difference between forfeiting millions or recovering vested compensation. The panel also debates whether RSUs should be treated as wages or benefits, the role of good faith and discretion in forfeiture decisions, and what these cases signal for employers and employees alike as equity-based compensation becomes more common.

Is there a case you'd like to hear us talk about? Do you have a story you'd like to share with our panel? Reach out to us at: [email protected] 

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ellen Low and Matthew Dewar join Chris Robertson and Sarah Goodenough to discuss Chan v. NYX Capital Corp. This case explores the limits of probationary employment and what happens when employers attempt to contract out of the Employment Standards Act. The panel dives into the meaning and implications of the phrase “at any time for any reason” in termination clauses, and why small drafting choices can make or break enforceability. With a mix of humour and technical insight, they reveal how two simple words, “legally permissible”, might be the key to getting it right.

Is there a case you'd like to hear us talk about? Do you have a story you'd like to share with our panel? Reach out to us at: [email protected] 

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

"The toughest cases in the world to predict the outcome are short service people. There’s no other word for it, they’re just a complete and utter mess." Barry Fisher and Robert Richler join Chris Robertson to discuss Kondaj v. Crossbridge Condominiums. In this episode, the panel unpacks the complexities of determining reasonable notice for short-service employees and explores whether notice functions as an objective calculation, a bridge to re-employment, or simply a judicial “crapshoot.”

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

"We have put all this work in and none of it will matter if the decimal is in the wrong place, or the release has two extra words we didn't notice." Matthew Fisher and Matthew Certosimo join Chris Robertson and Sarah Goodenough to discuss Preston v. Cervus Equipment Corporation and Bertsch v. Datastealth Inc. The common theme in these two cases is that employment law is not as unfair to employers as it is often alleged. It is, rather, a heavily technical process for both sides. Both these cases show that the devil is truly in the details.

Is there a case you'd like to hear us talk about? Do you have a story you'd like to share with our panel? Reach out to us at: [email protected]

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.