Inna Koldorf

With the right protections in place to ensure that employers are not able to discipline or terminate employees for every minor off-duty act that is not to the employer’s liking, a change in the law on off-duty conduct would allow employers to engage in discipline or discharge in circumstances where there is a high probability that the employer’s reputation and business interests may be harmed by an employee’s off-duty conduct and would allow the law to adapt to new technology and its effect on… Show more

With the right protections in place to ensure that employers are not able to discipline or terminate employees for every minor off-duty act that is not to the employer’s liking, a change in the law on off-duty conduct would allow employers to engage in discipline or discharge in circumstances where there is a high probability that the employer’s reputation and business interests may be harmed by an employee’s off-duty conduct and would allow the law to adapt to new technology and its effect on the workplace. Show less

In a decision that has many employers reconsidering the manner in which they implement their duty to accommodate, the Divisional Court recently confirmed the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal’s (the “Tribunal”) decision in Fair v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, in which the Tribunal ordered the reinstatement of an employee 8 years after termination.

In the age of social media, some employers request candidates’ Facebook passwords, or ask that candidates sign in to their Facebook profiles during a job interview. This article discusses that controversial practice, and describes the privacy and human rights concerns that it raises.

A review of the affect that the Divisional Court's decision in Trozzi and the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Figliola had on the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal's application of S. 45.1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Although in the eyes of the law a corporation is thought to possess a legal personality that is separate and distinct from its directors, in enacting section 131 of the OBCA (and similar sections in other jurisdictions) the legislature obviously felt that employees should be given greater protection than ordinary creditors. A director’s liability to employees for debt owed by the corporation is secondary to that of the corporation; efforts must be made to collect the debt from the corporation… Show more

Although in the eyes of the law a corporation is thought to possess a legal personality that is separate and distinct from its directors, in enacting section 131 of the OBCA (and similar sections in other jurisdictions) the legislature obviously felt that employees should be given greater protection than ordinary creditors. A director’s liability to employees for debt owed by the corporation is secondary to that of the corporation; efforts must be made to collect the debt from the corporation first or it must be shown that the corporation is bankrupt and unlikely to satisfy the debt. Section 131 of the OBCA seems to be a good compromise between leaving employee creditors without recourse on the one hand and protecting the corporate veil on the other. If nothing else, it is hoped that as more decisions are issued under section 131 of the OBCA, employers would become more proactive in ensuring that employees’ wages and benefits are fully paid before the corporation is no longer able to do so. Show less