<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Litigator - Affleck Greene McMurtry, LLP &#187; Employment Litigation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/commercial-litigation/employment-litigation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca</link>
	<description>Competition Law,  Commercial Litigation and Arbitration Updates</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 May 2013 01:52:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Non-solicitation clause with teeth: dental centre successful at Court of Appeal</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/non-solicitation-clause-with-teeth-dental-centre-successful-at-court-of-appeal/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=non-solicitation-clause-with-teeth-dental-centre-successful-at-court-of-appeal</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/non-solicitation-clause-with-teeth-dental-centre-successful-at-court-of-appeal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:43:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David N. Vaillancourt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeal for ontario]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dental practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[management agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-solicitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restraint of trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solicitation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1882</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Court of Appeal for Ontario has upheld the enforcement of a non-solicitation clause in an agreement between a dentist and a dental clinic in its recent decision in Smilecorp Inc. v. Daniel Pesin, 2012 ONCA 853.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/non-solicitation-clause-with-teeth-dental-centre-successful-at-court-of-appeal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wayward Fiduciary entitled to receive bonus from former Employer, says Court of Appeal</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/wayward-fiduciary-entitled-to-receive-bonus-from-former-employer-says-court-of-appeal/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=wayward-fiduciary-entitled-to-receive-bonus-from-former-employer-says-court-of-appeal</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/wayward-fiduciary-entitled-to-receive-bonus-from-former-employer-says-court-of-appeal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2012 03:59:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David N. Vaillancourt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Appeals and Judicial Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frauds, Misrepresentation, Deceit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediation and other Alternative Dispute Resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fiduciary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International and Domestic Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mary development corp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rosette]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1137</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mady Development Corp. v. Rossetto, 2012 ONCA 31, reaffirmed the principle that equitable relief is always discretionary and fact specific.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/wayward-fiduciary-entitled-to-receive-bonus-from-former-employer-says-court-of-appeal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reasonable notice periods still not “one size fits all”</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/03/reasonable-notice-periods-still-not-one-size-fits-all/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=reasonable-notice-periods-still-not-one-size-fits-all</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/03/reasonable-notice-periods-still-not-one-size-fits-all/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Meredith Hayward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wrongful Dismissal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonable notice]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=911</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You know that “rule of thumb” of one month notice for each year of employment? The one we use as a rough guideline for getting in the ballpark when determining a reasonable notice periods? The Court of Appeal has reminded us that the “rule of thumb” may not even get you near the ballpark when dealing with senior, high salaried employees.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/03/reasonable-notice-periods-still-not-one-size-fits-all/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Business judgment rule does not trump unanimous shareholders’ agreement</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/01/business-judgment-rule-does-not-trump-unanimous-shareholders%e2%80%99-agreement/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=business-judgment-rule-does-not-trump-unanimous-shareholders%25e2%2580%2599-agreement</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/01/business-judgment-rule-does-not-trump-unanimous-shareholders%e2%80%99-agreement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:05:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wrongful Dismissal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business judgment rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minority shareholder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oppression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oppression remedy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oppressive conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders' agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful dismissal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=548</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Directors of a corporation cannot invoke the business judgment rule to justify decisions that violate a unanimous shareholders’ agreement, the Ontario Divisional Court held recently.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/01/business-judgment-rule-does-not-trump-unanimous-shareholders%e2%80%99-agreement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Whose book of business is it, anyway? Confusion reigns on &#8216;ownership&#8217; of investment firm client lists</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/11/whose-book-of-business-is-it-anyway-confusion-reigns-on-ownership-of-investment-firm-client-lists/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=whose-book-of-business-is-it-anyway-confusion-reigns-on-ownership-of-investment-firm-client-lists</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/11/whose-book-of-business-is-it-anyway-confusion-reigns-on-ownership-of-investment-firm-client-lists/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2007 21:10:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advisor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[assets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BMO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[book of business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brokerage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[client]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clients]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consultant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[customer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[departing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dismissal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inglis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[King]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Merrill Lynch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nesbitt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retirement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sale]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solicitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TD]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=211</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There are few, if any, legal issues affecting the investment industry that are more cloudy and less certain than whether investment firm clients belong to the investment advisor or to the investment firm. And there are arguably few issues more important. This question has been the subject of several widely divergent – and even confusing - court decisions on the issue over the past few years.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/11/whose-book-of-business-is-it-anyway-confusion-reigns-on-ownership-of-investment-firm-client-lists/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Employment agency liable for not checking references</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/11/employment-agency-liable-for-not-checking-references/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=employment-agency-liable-for-not-checking-references</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/11/employment-agency-liable-for-not-checking-references/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 01:20:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Binetti</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes over Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frauds, Misrepresentation, Deceit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contributory negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deceit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misappropriation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[placement agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recruiting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recruitment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[references]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[theft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[treaty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=235</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Earlier this year, the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed a trial decision awarding damages against an employment placement agency for not checking the references of an employee who would later go on to defraud her employer of more than $263,000.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/11/employment-agency-liable-for-not-checking-references/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cable company liable for inducing breach of contract</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/cable-company-liable-for-inducing-breach-of-contract/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=cable-company-liable-for-inducing-breach-of-contract</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/cable-company-liable-for-inducing-breach-of-contract/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2007 20:11:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[at large]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[departing employees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic torts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inducing breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interference]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=177</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ontario’s Court of Appeal upheld the trial decision in Drouillard v. Cogeco Cable Canada Inc. that held large cable operator Cogeco Cable liable for telling a cable subcontractor, Mastec Canada, that it would not allow its employee, Mr. Drouillard, to work on Cogeco equipment.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/cable-company-liable-for-inducing-breach-of-contract/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ex-employees enjoined from accepting business from former employer&#8217;s customers</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/ex-employees-enjoined-from-accepting-business-from-former-employers-customers/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ex-employees-enjoined-from-accepting-business-from-former-employers-customers</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/ex-employees-enjoined-from-accepting-business-from-former-employers-customers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2007 01:41:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Wygodny</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interlocutory injunction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tank liners]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Western Tank]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=362</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Western Tank &#038; Lining Ltd. recently obtained an extraordinarily broad interlocutory injunction restraining a group of former employees not only from soliciting Western Tank's clients but even from accepting business from customers that Western Tank did business with over the previous 5 years.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/ex-employees-enjoined-from-accepting-business-from-former-employers-customers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Keays v. Honda</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/12/keays-v-honda/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=keays-v-honda</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/12/keays-v-honda/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Dec 2006 22:12:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Cantwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chronic fatigue syndrome]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[damages in lieu of notice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disabled]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dismissed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[notice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[punitive damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[severance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[termination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wallace damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful dismissal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=263</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In March of 2006, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded Kevin Keays a record $500,000 in punitive damages, in addition to 24 months pay in lieu of notice, after Honda terminated Keays' employment for frequent work absences due to chronic fatigue syndrome. On September 29, 2006, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the punitive damages awarded by the Superior Court should be dramatically reduced from $500,000 to $100,000. The Court of Appeal otherwise dismissed Honda's appeal of the Superior Court decision and, in doing so, rejected Honda's allegations of bias against the trial judge.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/12/keays-v-honda/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Departing employees and the ongoing battle over investment firm clients</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/departing-employees-and-the-ongoing-battle-over-investment-firm-clients/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=departing-employees-and-the-ongoing-battle-over-investment-firm-clients</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/departing-employees-and-the-ongoing-battle-over-investment-firm-clients/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:21:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brokerage firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clean hands]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clients]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confidentiality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[customers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[departing employees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dominion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fiduciary duties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interlocutory injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment advisors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Merrill Lynch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nesbitt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-solicitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[registered representative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restrictive covenant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stock broker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wellington West]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=219</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Competition is fierce among investment firms for top producing brokers and, more importantly, their books of business. Often this competition rears its head in the form of litigation against departing brokers and the new firms that employ them.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/departing-employees-and-the-ongoing-battle-over-investment-firm-clients/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Are courts more willing to enforce restrictive covenants?</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/09/are-courts-more-willing-to-enforce-restrictive-covenants/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=are-courts-more-willing-to-enforce-restrictive-covenants</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/09/are-courts-more-willing-to-enforce-restrictive-covenants/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:48:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sonny Ingram</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business relationships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment restrictive covenants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freight forwarder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freight services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restraint of trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restrictive covenant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=198</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Prima facie all covenants in restraint of trade are illegal and therefore unenforceable. Recently, this pillar of the law of contract has been given a new, albeit off-putting, coat of paint.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/09/are-courts-more-willing-to-enforce-restrictive-covenants/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No class action where arbitrator has jurisdiction, court holds</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/no-class-action-where-arbitrator-has-jurisdiction-court-holds/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=no-class-action-where-arbitrator-has-jurisdiction-court-holds</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/no-class-action-where-arbitrator-has-jurisdiction-court-holds/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2006 19:27:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stephanie Gabor, Summer Student</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediation and other Alternative Dispute Resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[administrative law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labour arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pension plans]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=289</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Class action legislation does not give courts jurisdiction over cases that would otherwise be dealt with by tribunals or arbitrators, the Supreme Court held in Concordia v. Bisaillon.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/no-class-action-where-arbitrator-has-jurisdiction-court-holds/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dismissed employee is entitled to damages for lost disability benefits</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/03/dismissed-employee-is-entitled-to-damages-for-lost-disability-benefits/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=dismissed-employee-is-entitled-to-damages-for-lost-disability-benefits</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/03/dismissed-employee-is-entitled-to-damages-for-lost-disability-benefits/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2006 21:34:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[causation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disability insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dismissal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employee benefits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inducement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quantum of damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[release]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[salary in lieu of notice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[severance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[working notice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful dismissal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=225</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In its January 10, 2006 decision in Egan v. Alcatel, the Ontario Court of Appeal awarded damages for both lost salary and lost disability benefits to an employee who became disabled three months after she was dismissed. In doing so, Ontario's top court made it clear that an employer is obliged, not only to continue the salary paid to a dismissed employee during an appropriate notice period, but also to continue all employee benefits, including short and long-term disability benefits.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/03/dismissed-employee-is-entitled-to-damages-for-lost-disability-benefits/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Discharged employee cannot recover damages for loss of disability benefits on top of damages for wrongful dismissal</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/01/discharged-employee-cannot-recover-damages-for-loss-of-disability-benefits-on-top-of-damages-for-wrongful-dismissal/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=discharged-employee-cannot-recover-damages-for-loss-of-disability-benefits-on-top-of-damages-for-wrongful-dismissal</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/01/discharged-employee-cannot-recover-damages-for-loss-of-disability-benefits-on-top-of-damages-for-wrongful-dismissal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2006 21:32:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alcatel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alcatel canada inc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disability benefits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mary Egan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful dismissal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful termination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=223</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A discharged employee cannot recover damages for loss of disability benefits in addition to damages for wrongful dismissal, the Ontario Court of Appeal held in a decision issued on January 10, 2006. Awarding such damages would constitute double recovery, the court said.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/01/discharged-employee-cannot-recover-damages-for-loss-of-disability-benefits-on-top-of-damages-for-wrongful-dismissal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ex-Honda employee’s odyssey ends with “large whack” of punitive damages</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/05/ex-honda-employee%e2%80%99s-odyssey-ends-with-%e2%80%9clarge-whack%e2%80%9d-of-punitive-damages/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ex-honda-employee%25e2%2580%2599s-odyssey-ends-with-%25e2%2580%259clarge-whack%25e2%2580%259d-of-punitive-damages</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/05/ex-honda-employee%e2%80%99s-odyssey-ends-with-%e2%80%9clarge-whack%e2%80%9d-of-punitive-damages/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2005 21:45:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[absenteeism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alliston ontario]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chronic fatigue syndrome]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[honda employee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[long term disability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario human rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario human rights code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[punitive damages]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=261</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In March, the Ontario Superior Court awarded Kevin Keays 24 months pay in lieu of notice and $500,000 in punitive damages after Honda Canada Inc. fired him because he was suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and was frequently absent from work.[1] The amount of punitive damages is likely a record in employment cases in&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/05/ex-honda-employee%e2%80%99s-odyssey-ends-with-%e2%80%9clarge-whack%e2%80%9d-of-punitive-damages/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/05/ex-honda-employee%e2%80%99s-odyssey-ends-with-%e2%80%9clarge-whack%e2%80%9d-of-punitive-damages/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
