About Earl Altman
What is the impact of mental health issues on the duty to mitigate
It has often been said that termination from employment is the capital punishment of employment law. While perhaps too extreme an analogy, there is no doubt that termination is an emotionally draining experience. The courts have grappled with the issue of plaintiffs in a wrongful dismissal claim who argue that the emotional upheaval of their dismissal resulted in an inability to look for replacement work for a period of time.
Earl Altman
3 minutes read
February 19, 2014 
Understanding the rights of pregnant employees in Ontario
Pregnant employees or those employees intending to become pregnant, enjoy significant protection under various provincial and federal statutes. This article will explore the protections provided by the Ontario Human Rights Code, Employment Standards Act, and the Employment Insurance Act.
Earl Altman
Lack of facts doesn’t keep a good judge down
In a recent decision from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, the judge considered the rights of an employer to claim compensation for an employee who had allegedly stolen a business idea. The facts of the case are not unique; indeed, they arise frequently in the give-and-take between employer and employee.
Earl Altman
Motions for judgment in wrongful dismissal − the Court of Appeal’s latest statement
One of the difficulties faced by plaintiffs’ counsel in wrongful dismissal litigation is the length of time it can require to get a case to trial and obtain monetary compensation for the dismissed employee. Obviously, a plaintiff without a job is sensitive to the costs and delay which may result. This issue can often be addresses by way of a Motion for Summary Judgment.
Earl Altman
Employee’s options after constructive dismissal
What does an employee do if she has been constructively dismissed but has not been told to leave her employ? Is she still entitled to continue to work for the employer and look for alternative employment? Is she obligated to do so?
Earl Altman
4 minutes read
April 15, 2011
What are the employee’s obligations in the accommodation process
The Ontario Human Rights Code provides for a variety of prohibitions against discrimination on stated grounds, including disability. However, the Code goes on to specify “a right of a person under this code is not infringed for the reason only that the person is incapable of performing or fulfilling the essential duties or requirements attending the exercise of the right because of disability”. Reading through the legalese, what this means is that it is not a prohibited act of discrimination to deny an employee a job for the reasons that his disability prevents him from performing that job. However, the Code goes on to provide that a person cannot be found incapable of performing the duties of his position if it is possible for the employer to accommodate his particular needs “without undue hardship”.
Earl Altman
4 minutes read
March 1, 2011
Dealing with an employee’s extended absence due to illness
Employers are often faced with the prospect of dealing with an employee who is required to be absent from work for an extended period of time due to an illness. Employers must tread a fine line in determining when the employee is able to return to work and on what basis.
Earl Altman
6 minutes read
November 16, 2010
Court of appeal rejects ‘double counting’
Most employers understand a claim for damages for wrongful dismissal as arising from the termination of an employee’s employment without adequate cause or notice. It can be argued that this in fact reflects a misconception of the nature of the employment contract. Except in certain limited cases of federally regulated companies,…
Earl Altman
4 minutes read
September 21, 2010
Don’t push the employees – Court of Appeal deals with damages in a wrongful dismissal claim
The scope of damages available in wrongful dismissal claims has been steadily widening over the past decade. However, in a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, released on May 28, 2010, the Court reversed this trend by rejecting tort liability of an employer for intentional infliction of mental suffering arising from a dismissal.
Earl Altman
5 minutes read
September 7, 2010