Duntrune Blog

The Rise in Age of New Hires

Fri, 23 Jan 2026 05:03:32 GMT

The Rise in Age of New Hires

It is news to no one that the job market is extremely tight right now. It takes months for qualified candidates to land new jobs, especially for recent graduates and young employees. In fact, the average age of a new hire in 2025 was 42 years old.

This past year saw the continuation of a sharp decline in the number of workers under the age of 25 starting new positions. This mirrors the trend of the last 10 years, contributing to a decline in this demographic amounting to almost 10%.

Alternatively, there was a significant increase in workers over the age of 65 who entered a new position, with an increase in this demographic of almost 80% (!) during the same period.

This trend is interesting as it was noted by Revelio’s chief economist, Lisa Simon, that usually when the labour markets tighten, young employees hoping to land entry-level positions are still successful. However, that is not what is currently happening, with companies prioritizing experience over all else and are willing to pay premium for it.

So, what does this mean? Notably, if you’re older and in the later stages of your career, this is arguably one of the first times that the job market is in your favour if you want to leave your current job and start a new position. Employers are now favouring employees with experience over their prospective longevity with the company.

Why Knicks' lawsuit against Raptors might not be a big deal

mdewar@duntrune.law (Matt Dewar) — Tue, 12 Sep 2023 14:14:54 GMT

Why Knicks' lawsuit against Raptors might not be a big deal

TORONTO — It’s an NBA axiom: When it comes to hoops knowledge, everyone steals.

No one in the world’s best league is so original that their basketball philosophies are complete secrets to their competition, or at least not for long. If someone does push the envelope — former Toronto Raptors head coach Nick Nurse got ahead of the curve for a season or two with his swarming, ball-hawking style of defence and willingness to embrace underused tactics such as the "box-and-one" he broke out against Steph Curry and the Golden State Warriors — it gets noted, gobbled up and either mainstreamed or steamrolled.

It is, as the saying goes, a copycat league.

But there is also being inspired by an opponent’s approach — studying tactics, gaining information from former players or coaches, poring over video — and then there is theft in real-time.

And the latter is what the New York Knicks are alleging one of their former coaches did on his way out the door to take a job with the Raptors.

In a seemingly unprecedented move, the Knicks filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan on Monday, alleging that former staffer Ikechukwu Azotam sent the Raptors thousands of confidential digital files while he was being recruited to join Toronto as part of new head coach Darko Rajakovic’s staff.

The most damning allegation is that Azotam performed some of his corporate espionage at the direction of Rajakovic and player development coach Noah Lewis, and that the Knicks’ proprietary data was allegedly accessed up to 2,000 times by up to 10 unnamed Raptors employees.

The dates involved certainly suggest there might be fire where there’s smoke. Rajakovic was hired in Toronto in early June, and Azotam allegedly began forwarding Knicks information in July to his personal Gmail account, which he then shared with the Raptors. The suit also alleges that it was in this period that Rajakovic and Lewis directed Azotam to use the Knicks' subscription to Synergy Sports to transfer film information and data to Toronto. The data breach was discovered on Aug. 15, one day after Azotam left the Knicks for the Raptors.

There are two primary issues.

One is, is this a big deal?

The other — not unrelated to the first — is what consequences Azotam, Rajakovic and the Raptors might face if the Knicks allegations are proven true, which — given the apparent digital footprint that allowed the Knicks to uncover the actions to begin with — shouldn’t be all that hard.

On the "Is it a big deal?" front, well, it depends on who you ask.

After speaking with a couple of executives from other teams, I think it’s fair to say that that the Knicks lawsuit hasn’t caused 28 other franchises to begin scanning their organizations' computer servers in a panic, looking for possible cybercrimes.

Each of them agreed that although what the Knicks are alleging to have happened isn’t nothing — there is a reason employees sign confidentiality agreements in the NBA — the question is whether the information Azotam was providing to the Raptors was actually exclusive to the Knicks and valuable in a significant way.

“What he’s being accused of feels really bad. It might be inflated a little bit, but it sounds like a lot, and if he forwarded (information) to another team while he was working for the Knicks, that’s not good,” said one league executive. “Sure, you can say all the teams have a lot of the same stuff, but (Knicks head coach) Tom Thibodeau is paid $8 million a year for a reason; his opinion is valuable. How many games in this league come down to the last possession? Tendencies matter, and in the playoffs they matter even more. Sure, everyone knows this stuff, but depending on how deep a team goes and who's doing the digging, it matters.”

The context then, is important. If it is borne out that what Azotam was doing on behalf of his new employer was really just pulling together information he’d gathered in his role with the Knicks as a way to prove his own value in what amounted to an extended job interview — "When guys want to come work for you, they sell their stuff," said one league source. "So, yeah, bring it. But don’t get caught" — well, maybe it’s not such a big deal.

“I’m not being dismissive of this,” said another executive. “But people take stuff all the time (when they change jobs). Yes, it's proprietary, but it’s usually their own product; work that they’ve done over time. So, without knowing the sensitivity level or what was taken or how egregious it was, it’s not something I’d care about that much.

“And timing matters, too. If it was mid-season and he was taking stuff for the current year, or the upcoming season, I might be more upset about it, but if it’s from the previous year, I don’t know if I’d be all that mad.”

And as for the volume of files — the suit alleges that Azotam “illegally shared 3,358 video files” and that “the stolen files were accessed over 2,000 times by the Raptors' defendants” — well, again, context matters.

In a league where games are recorded from every angle at 25 frames per second, “a single game edit could be thousands of files,” said one source.

So, on the surface anyway, the Knicks-Raptors dust-up seems like only a distant relative to the MLB case of corporate espionage from 2016, when the FBI determined that then-St. Louis Cardinals scouting director Chris Correa had been hacking into the Houston Rockets proprietary database for years, accessing scouting reports on draft prospects, contract information and notes on trade discussions at critical moments during the season. The FBI got involved and Correa eventually pleaded guilty to five counts of unauthorized access to a protected computer and was sentenced to 46 months in prison. After the criminal case, MLB weighed in, requiring St. Louis to pay $2 million and their top two draft picks to the Astros.

Which raises the question, is the Knicks case even worthy of a lawsuit?

The consensus seems that it is more of a league matter that could have been handled internally. And it escalated so quickly: The Knicks informed Raptors ownership (MLSE) of the issue only last Thursday. But even though MLSE pledged full cooperation, the Knicks went ahead and filed the lawsuit anyway.

“It sort of feels like someone over there blew their top,” said one of the league executives, referring to the Knicks.

As for what now?

Well, that’s the real question. For now, the league has refrained from commenting, but that will be the next step.

Otherwise?

“From an employment law perspective, it’s a no-brainer,” said Matt Dewar, a Toronto-based lawyer with Duntrune Employment Lawyers . “If an employee is caught funnelling documents and strategy to a competitor, they would be fired, and efforts would be made to recover whatever damages were owed. It’s an open-and-shut case.”

But the Knicks' challenge will be proving that the information was actually significant to their business success — these aren’t drug patents, but game film, after all — and what actual damages they have suffered, or what the Raptors gained from the process.

“It’s pretty telling that in the suit the Knicks left the damages they’re seeking as 'TBD,'" added Dewar. “The Knicks don’t even know themselves what damages they’ve suffered.”

Will the Raptors eventually suffer any?

Per Dewar, the Raptors are under no obligation to even fire Azotam, let alone anyone higher on the organizational chart.

But should they? One view is that if he’s so willing to contravene his employment agreement with the Knicks for the Raptors' benefit, who’s to say he won’t do it to the Raptors when the next team comes knocking. Another? Someone who is willing to be a "mole" — as described in the suit — on your behalf might the kind of guy you want around: if you’re not cheating, you’re not trying, as the saying goes.

How this all gets resolved will be interesting. The chances of it going to trial seem slim, and the chances of the Knicks winning don’t seem all that great either, given it would be hard to prove that the information taken was actually a trade secret and not just some well-organized scraping of existing public data. Proving the Knicks suffered any great loss because of what Azotam did, regardless of his motivation, would be harder still. After all, the season hasn’t even started.

A scouting report on how to play the 2022-23 Indiana Pacers — which was among the information allegedly taken — can be deemed only so valuable in 2023-24.

Does the league have to step in and make a ruling for the whole thing to go away quickly? That seems about right.

Let’s say it's worth a six-figure fine and — maybe — a future second-round pick and call it a day. And then the NBA can get back to business as usual, where stealing everyone’s best ideas is the lifeblood of the league, as long as it doesn’t happen over company email and no one gets caught.

When should an employee worry that their off-duty misconduct may give rise to termination for cause?

Fri, 13 Jan 2023 18:01:28 GMT

Off-Duty Misconduct Can Cause Termination

When should an employee worry that their off-duty misconduct may give rise to termination for cause?

As recently reported in the press, a single act of misconduct even outside the workplace, can prove fatal

to a career. On an Air India flight from New York to Delhi, a Vice President for Wells Fargo, Shankar

Mishra, was recently reported to have become so intoxicated that he urinated on an elderly female

passenger sitting in a row behind him.

When Mishra sobered up, he realized his predicament and attempted to apologize. It was too late. After

facing criminal charges of harassment and insulting the modesty of a woman under Indian law, he was

fired by the Bank for failing to adhere to exacting professional and personal standards.

Mishra was based in India. What if the incident had occurred in Canada?

The general rule is that the more senior the employee, the more likely their off-duty behaviour will be

viewed as undermining an employer’s legitimate business interests. Negative media coverage will

bolster an employer’s case in justifying their termination for just cause. Conversely, if an employer

cannot demonstrate a nexus to the duties or public profile of the employee - such as a junior staff - then

no cause will be established.

The COVID-19 Pandemic’s Impact on an Employee’s Notice Period

Tue, 26 Oct 2021 17:45:45 GMT

By Michael F. Lee , October 26, 2021

The COVID-19 Pandemic’s Impact on an Employee’s Notice Period

The pandemic’s impact on Canada’s economy has resulted in job losses across a wide array of sectors. As more employees are let go, judges are continually tasked with determining whether and how the economic downturn should be taken into account in assessing employees’ termination entitlements.

Historically, courts have recognized that a downturn in the economy may justify a longer notice period; and, not surprisingly, Ontario judges have in recent months acknowledged the pandemic’s impact on the job market as a relevant consideration in deciding upon the appropriate “reasonable notice” period for a terminated employee.

In Yee v Hudson's Bay Company, 2021 ONSC 387 , Justice Dow suggested that an employee who is terminated during the COVID-19 pandemic should be awarded a greater notice period than an employee who was terminated before the pandemic began:

It seems clear terminations which occurred before the COVID pandemic and its effect on employment opportunities should not attract the same consideration as termination after the beginning of the COVID pandemic and its negative effect on finding comparable employment.

Similarly:

In Lamontagne v J.L. Richards & Associates Limited, 2021 ONSC 2133 , Justice Roger found that the economic uncertainty that had been engendered by the threat of the pandemic by February 2020 was a factor to consider in assessing the employee’s reasonable notice period.

In Kraft v Firepower Financial Corp., 2021 ONSC 4962 , Justice Morgan held that there was: “evidence that the pandemic impacted on [sic] the Plaintiff's ability to secure new employment. In light of that evidence, he deserves to receive at least somewhat above the average notice period.”

That said, other decisions have clarified that a dismissed employee cannot simply cite the pandemic to justify a longer notice period. Rather, they must show that the impact of the pandemic has caused particular difficulty in finding other similar employment.

For example, in Marazzato v Dell Canada Inc., 2021 ONSC 248 , although the plaintiff employee urged the Court to consider the economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic to justify a longer notice period, the Court determined that – in the plaintiff’s particular circumstances – there was no evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic had presented an obstacle to him finding alternative work. In that regard, Justice Dow explained that:

while there has been an economic downturn for many, Mr. Marazzato's former employer and his skill set is in the computer business which may have actually benefited from the COVID pandemic and its resulting greater use of computers for access to the internet and remote practices. The only evidence that touches on this area before me was Dell's strong financial performance to October 2020 as reflected in its increased share price. That is insufficient to make any concrete determination. Overall, I would conclude this factor does not favour a longer period of notice.

Judges in other Provinces have also decided against extending an employee’s notice period where:

the evidence did not “support a limited availability of similar employment” ( Goetz v Instow Enterprises Ltd., 2021 BCSC 709 at para 68, MacNaughton J); or

there was “no evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic played a negative role” in finding alternative work ( Abdon v Brandt Industries Canada Ltd., 2021 SKPC 37 at para 66, Demong J).

The lesson for both employers and employees is that although the courts recognize that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on Canada’s economy and job market, the judiciary is mindful that its impact has not been uniform or universal. Some industries have been hit much harder than others, and some sectors have benefited from heighted demand during the pandemic.

Accordingly, the question of whether an employee will be entitled to enhanced termination arrangements due to the exigencies of COVID-19 will depend upon the extent to which the pandemic has limited (or not) the availability of similar employment for that individual – i.e. employment in the same or similar sector and/or employment in which he or she engages the same or similar skill set.

If you are an employer or employee with any questions regarding employee notice entitlements, do not hesitate to contact Duntrune LLP .

Michael F. Lee is an associate at Duntrune LLP .

Mandatory Vaccination Protocols In the Workplace – Get with the program or else (?)

Mon, 20 Sep 2021 15:15:22 GMT

By Jason Beeho , September 20, 2021

Mandatory Vaccination Protocols in the Workplace – Get with the program, or else (?)

On August 17, 2021, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that the government would implement a policy of mandatory vaccination for all federal public servants, subject only to exclusions for “legitimate medical reason[s]”. He went on to caution that, for those public service employees who refuse to be vaccinated, “there will be consequences.”

As at this writing, one month later, mandatory vaccination policies have been rolled out for public servants at all levels of government, and by private employers – large and small – across the country.

Typically, those policies identify a deadline by which employees must verify that they are fully vaccinated; and those deadlines are coming fast. Moreover, with COVID’s “4 ^th wave” dominating the headlines (and with Alberta, in particular, reeling from a surge in cases), those deadlines are unlikely to be extended.

And when those deadlines run out, what will be the “consequences” for employees who have refused to be vaccinated?

There is every reason to believe that those consequences will be severe.

If an employer can demonstrate that a mandatory vaccination policy is a reasonable and justifiable component of its occupational health and safety strategy (and, in most cases, it will be), then willful non-compliance with that policy (again, subject to exceptions for legitimate medical reasons) will amount to willful misconduct. Willful misconduct amounts to “just cause” for dismissal. And in the event of “just cause”, an employer is not obliged to provide notice of termination, termination pay, or severance pay.

In other words, an employee who refuses to comply with a mandatory vaccination policy is not only putting his or her employment at risk, but is inviting termination for “just cause” – i.e. without a severance package.

At present, many employers are allowing for alternatives – at least temporarily. For example, unvaccinated employees may be permitted to continue remote working arrangements for a period of time, may be permitted to attend at the workplace subject to providing proof of negative COVID test results multiple times per week, or may be offered a brief “grace period” in the form of an unpaid leave of absence during which they might re-consider the choice to remain unvaccinated.

But, in most sectors, employees should not expect such allowances to last.

And nor should they make the mistake of believing that a “personal choice” to remain unvaccinated will somehow attract the protection of human rights legislation, or that employers will lack the resolve to proceed with “just cause” terminations.

More to the point, refusing to comply with a workplace vaccination policy will in most cases present no legitimate opportunity to claim a severance package or other damages.

Although there is hardly perfect consensus on the issue, there is no mistaking the direction of the prevailing winds. Mandatory vaccination policies are becoming the “new normal” for Ontario workplaces; and, stated bluntly, employees are being presented with a choice – either get with the program. . . or else.

Mandatory Vaccination Protocols

Mon, 23 Aug 2021 15:04:35 GMT

By Jason Beeho , August 23, 2021

Employers are implementing mandatory vaccination protocols – Can they do that?

The short answer is yes.

In recent days, we have seen the Federal government announce that – subject only to limited exceptions – all of its public service employees must be fully vaccinated. The Ontario provincial government quickly followed suit with a similar pronouncement, as did the City of Toronto. So has the TTC, and – as at this writing – numerous universities and four of Canada’s major banks.

Although the issue has yet to be put before the courts, there is every reason to believe that such policies – provided that they are properly implemented and allow for appropriate exceptions – are perfectly lawful.

More specifically, exceptions must be made for employees who present valid medical reasons for remaining unvaccinated. In such circumstances, human rights legislation requires that accommodations be made – which, depending upon the circumstances, may include, for example, requiring the employee to present a current “negative” COVID-19 test result as a condition of attending at the workplace, providing a work-from-home arrangement, or placing the worker on a leave of absence.

Ontario employers are bound by strict occupational health and safety obligations, which include taking “every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker.” And although there is certainly not perfect consensus on the issue, the prevailing wisdom holds that COVID vaccine is safe and effective. Public health authorities encourage vaccination, and caution against the potential impact of a “fourth wave” and variant strains of the virus. Moreover, the vaccine is readily available.

In all of the circumstances, it follows that employers can lawfully and legitimately insist upon proof of vaccination as part of their occupational health and safety compliance.

With many businesses planning for a return to “normal” (or “near-normal”) on-site operations this September, employees should expect their employers to follow the lead that has now been set by government and some of the country’s largest institutions.

Unless and until the courts say otherwise (which is unlikely), mandatory vaccination policies are on their way to becoming the “new normal” for Ontario workplaces.

A Ray of Hope for Employers

Wed, 11 Aug 2021 18:01:21 GMT

By Israel Balter , August 11, 2021

For Ontario’s employers, the contemporary challenge of hiring staff is characterized by attracting talent that meets core competencies and rudimentary work habits and retaining them. It would be understandable that companies would seek a measure of assurance that the employees that they hire will stay with them. The costs incurred in training staff are as often as not a wasted investment in a market dominated by a mobile workforce exhibiting little fealty to their employers and aggravated by recurrent lockdowns.

A notable dimension to this issue is the market of short-term immigrants to Canada on student and working visas. Employers are naturally reluctant to hire employees who will be unable to commit to the long-term and obviously prefer candidates who may stay in Canada.

Imperial Oil extended an offer to an international student, Muhammed Haseeb, who was finishing up his engineering degree at McGill University. The offer was conditional on him producing evidence of his status as a permanent resident. When the company learned that he only had a time-limited student visa, it yanked the offer. Accusing the company of discrimination on the grounds of citizenship, Haseeb filed an application with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal and recovered $120,000 in damages. Its novel reasoning was that the definition of “citizenship” under the Human Rights Code encompassed immigration status.

The decision left employers scrambling by further impairing their ability to create and sustain a stable workforce. What employer would wish to expose themselves to litigation with such ominous results?

Fortunately, the Tribunal decision has been recently reversed by the Divisional Court : Treating the requirement of permanent residency as discrimination on the basis of citizenship was going too far. Employers do have a right to ask employees whether they are permanent residents and exclude those who do not fit into that category without running afoul of the Human Rights Code or foiling their legitimate interest in a committed and durable business operation.

Just Say It

Tue, 16 Mar 2021 18:29:41 GMT

"The vulgar directness of the question called for a direct answer"
– Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

By Matthew Dewar , March 16, 2021

Coyness is a trait that does not belong in the termination process as RTO Asset Management recently learned to its chagrin.

When initially questioned whether he was having a romance with a direct report that he had hired, James Abrams flatly denied the accusations. His employer proceeded to conduct an investigation in which Abrams’s report in fact, acknowledged the relationship. When confronted with his subordinate’s statement, Abrams then admitted to the affair.

By all accounts, RTO had just cause to terminate on grounds of lack of candour and conflict of interest. It opted, however, to inform Abrams that it was dismissing him on a without cause basis. The record of employment that it issued gave similar non-culpable reasons for the termination.

Emboldened, Abrams’s response was to sue for wrongful dismissal. Only then did RTO argue that it had cause based on his behaviours.

In a 43-page decision, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal sided with Abrams and awarded him with 24 months of notice. The employer was bound by its written letter of termination that communicated the firing was without cause as well as its statements to Service Canada on the Record of Employment. Having chosen to terminate him without cause, it was too late to rely on just cause at trial.

The lessons of this case to employers are stark reminders on the harsh scrutiny that courts apply to the documentation of terminations of employees:

The Significance of the Termination Letter: You will be bound by what you put it writing regardless of the seriousness of the misconduct.
The Value of Directness: Be blunt in asserting the circumstances of cause in the termination letter. While it is addressed to the employee, its message is equally directed to their counsel and, even more importantly, the trial judge.
Severance Offers: A severance offer must be carefully crafted so that it does not compromise an employer’s ability to rely on cause in the event of litigation. Being nice can come with a price tag.
Records of Employment: A record of employment issued to Service Canada has legal consequences, too. Take care when issuing and ROE and complete the reasons carefully.
Legal Advice: The cost of legal counsel who are seasoned in employment law is a worthwhile investment in curbing unanticipated expenses of termination.

# employment law; record of employment; workplace relationships; termination letters; termination for cause; termination without cause

SCC denies leave to appeal in Waksdale - Employers' hopes dashed

Mon, 18 Jan 2021 20:53:02 GMT

SCC denies leave to appeal in Waksdale - Employers' hopes dashed

The evanescent hopes of employers to see the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Waksdale reversed by the Supreme Court of Canada have faded. Now that the leave to appeal has been denied , employers must come to grips with the reality that many of their employment agreements entered into before 2020 may be invalid. Despite the best legal craftsmanship, their employees may very well be entitled to common law reasonable notice. That is a heavy financial consequence for employers to bear, particularly in this economic climate.

So what can be done to limit exposure in the event of a dismissal? The fatal flaw in the Waksdale agreement was the exclusion of notice in the event of cause - it made no reference to the Employment Standards Act 2000: an employer might have cause under common law, but would still be required to pay statutory notice and severance pay. That omission was viewed as an unlawful attempt to contract out of the statute, rendering not only the clause but the entire notice provision which might be valid.

There are two solutions:

The cause provision refers to the ESA and might read: “In the event of cause, you will receive no notice or pay in lieu of notice, except for the minimum provisions under the Employment Standards Act 2000";

2. Get rid of discrete provision for cause and simply say: “In the event of our terminating your employment, you will receive the minimum

provisions of the Employment Standards Act 2000 and that shall be your full and final entitlement.” In this way, there are no exclusions.

Lang may yer lum reek!

Who decides who will work from home in Ontario?

Thu, 14 Jan 2021 18:43:07 GMT

Who decides who will work from home in Ontario?

Ontario employers can breathe a little easier today in assuring that essential staff show up to work.

During his announcement on Tuesday of the stay at home edict for all Ontario residents, Premier Ford was explicit: all employees who could work from home would have to stay there during the latest lockdown. The Ontario Government’s 33 page handout said that only limited exceptions would be permitted. But the unanswered question was: who would make the decision as to whether an employee could tenably perform their work remotely? The police? The employees themselves? The fear that employers evinced and the implications for the tenability of their businesses was palpable. Anecdotally, employers are receiving accounts of police cruisers stopping their employees and directing them to go home.

Fortunately, the stay at home regulation issued by the government last night under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act leaves that determination to the employer: an individual may leave their residence when their employer has determined that the nature of the individual’s work requires attendance at the workplace.

So the employer is given the authority to exercise their bona fide judgment to determine when the work must be performed in the workplace. This minimizes the arbitrariness that comes with giving law enforcement unfettered discretion.

Best practices is for employers to review the different positions and document the rationale for any decision to require the incumbents to attend at work.

Podcast: Matthew Dewar on How Companies and Employees Can Navigate COVID-19 in 2021

Thu, 31 Dec 2020 19:23:27 GMT

Podcast: Matthew Dewar on How Companies and Employees Can Navigate COVID-19 in 2021

The vaccines are being rolled out as we speak, but that doesn't mean COVID-19 is behind us. The pandemic has left tens of millions of people out of work and companies struggling to stay alive. This week, Duntrune LLP's Matthew Dewar joins the show to share his expectations for employer/employee relations in 2021. While some long layoffs might be considered termination, seeking a settlement from cash strapped companies could be futile in the midst of a pandemic. He's got some ideas on how employers can manage risk and what laid-off employees should consider, too.

Then we look at some positive news from last week: Major League Baseball's decision to include player statistics from the Negro Leagues into the official baseball stat book. The Negro Leagues stopped playing 72 years ago, so it was a long-time coming. While it might appear to be an easy win for MLB, Cam explains why it wasn't quite so simple, and shared his thoughts on what MLB did right as it rolled out the announcement.

Hosts

Ewan Christie is an employment lawyer and partner at Duntrune LLP in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Cam MacMurchy is a corporate communications executive with a multinational technology company listed in Hong Kong and curator of the Digital Bits PR and Communications newsletter. He also contributes to Apple news website 9to5Mac and shares his thoughts on PR, media, travel, and technology on his website .

Podcast: How to Terminate an Employee Properly (and Respectfully), and Why a Blog Beats a News Release

Mon, 28 Dec 2020 20:20:53 GMT

Podcast: How to Terminate Employees Properly (and Respectfully), and Why a Blog Beats a News Release

It's the end of the year, and that can sometimes mean layoffs. It's cruel to let somebody go right before Christmas - at least in western countries - but it happens more than you'd think. This week Ewan helps explain the meaning behind terms like "terminated with cause" and "without cause," and the steps employers should take to reduce risk and treat the employee respectfully. There's lots of good and practical information in this discussion, so don't miss it!

Then Cam talks about how blogs are becoming equal to - or even more effective than - the traditional news release. He explains how this change has happened over the last few years, why some continue to resist blogs, and advice for companies who want to tell compelling stories to their audiences and customers.

Hosts

Ewan Christie is an employment lawyer and partner at Duntrune LLP in Toronto, Ontario.

Podcast: The Controversial Firing of the Canucks' Anthem Singer

Tue, 22 Dec 2020 23:14:02 GMT

The Controversial Firing of an Anthem Singer for Joining an Anti-Lockdown Protest, and Avoiding Trouble at Holiday Parties in a Pandemic

The longtime anthem singer of the Vancouver Canucks was fired after taking part in a "freedom rally" to oppose government restrictions amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Did the team have grounds to fire him? What rights does the anthem singer have? And what about the PR fallout? We go through all of it - in detail.

With Christmas around the corner, we tackle the thorny issue of company holiday parties. They can be rife with potential risk in the best of times, but during a pandemic those risks are exponential. We discuss what companies should think about and how they might be able to avoid some costly problems.

Hosts

Ewan Christie is an employment lawyer and founding partner at Duntrune LLP in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Cam MacMurchy is a corporate communications executive with a multinational technology company listed in Hong Kong, and curator of the Digital Bits PR and Communications newsletter. He also contributes to Apple news website, 9to5Mac , and shares his thoughts on PR, media, travel, and technology on his website .

Behind the times?

Fri, 11 Dec 2020 20:34:09 GMT

Do employees sign up for a minimum level of abuse in 2020 and are lawyers in their dotage perhaps falling behind the times?

SUPRIYA DWIVEDI RESIGNED FROM GLOBAL NEWS AFTER RECEIVING A RAPE THREAT DIRECTED AT HER DAUGHTER. PHOTOS SUPPLIED AND BY CARLOS OSORIO

One would have thought that there was no question: for years, the courts, and subsequently the legislatures, have assured employees the right to be free of harassment and abuse from either their managers, co-workers, customers, or clients. The law imposes an affirmative obligation on employers to protect their health and safety and to take preventative measures to eliminate or reduce such hazards in the workplace.

By way of example, airlines may not tolerate passengers harassing flight attendants; waitstaff in restaurants do not have to endure abuse from rude patrons; and articling students and junior lawyers need not patiently suffer any bullying on the part of their principals. While abuse may have been de rigeur in workplaces in the 70s, the law has evolved to reflect society’s intolerance of such conduct.

It appears that not all lawyers grasp how the law has developed in this area.

Social media has been abuzz with a story of a radio host who recently resigned, accusing her employer of not protecting her from trolling and abuse from segments of her audience. The news station vigorously denied the allegations and asserted that it had done everything possible to protect her. That statement appropriately restates the legal obligations of the employer.

However, the station’s lawyer conveyed an entirely different message in a quotation to the effect that if she could not tolerate trolls, then she does not belong on talk radio as it is currently practiced in North America.

Presumably, the lawyer’s quote is not accurate. Surely, it could not be reflective of how he truly feels about workplace abuse, could it?

Duntrune Blog

The Rise in Age of New Hires

The Rise in Age of New Hires

Why Knicks' lawsuit against Raptors might not be a big deal

Why Knicks' lawsuit against Raptors might not be a big deal ﻿

When should an employee worry that their off-duty misconduct may give rise to termination for cause?

Off-Duty Misconduct Can Cause Termination

The COVID-19 Pandemic’s Impact on an Employee’s Notice Period

Mandatory Vaccination Protocols In the Workplace – Get with the program or else (?)

Mandatory Vaccination Protocols

A Ray of Hope for Employers

Just Say It

"The vulgar directness of the question called for a direct answer" – Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

SCC denies leave to appeal in Waksdale - Employers' hopes dashed

SCC denies leave to appeal in Waksdale - Employers' hopes dashed

Who decides who will work from home in Ontario?

Who decides who will work from home in Ontario?

Podcast: Matthew Dewar on How Companies and Employees Can Navigate COVID-19 in 2021

Podcast: Matthew Dewar on How Companies and Employees Can Navigate COVID-19 in 2021

Podcast: How to Terminate an Employee Properly (and Respectfully), and Why a Blog Beats a News Release

Podcast: How to Terminate Employees Properly (and Respectfully), and Why a Blog Beats a News Release

Podcast: The Controversial Firing of the Canucks' Anthem Singer

The Controversial Firing of an Anthem Singer for Joining an Anti-Lockdown Protest, and Avoiding Trouble at Holiday Parties in a Pandemic

Behind the times?

Do employees sign up for a minimum level of abuse in 2020 and are lawyers in their dotage perhaps falling behind the times?

Why Knicks' lawsuit against Raptors might not be a big deal

"The vulgar directness of the question called for a direct answer"
– Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray