The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Common Law of EmploymentCOVID-19Employment Regulation

Constructive Dismissal in the time of COVID-19

by Devan Marr March 17, 2020
written by Devan Marr March 17, 2020

Written by Devan Marr, Strigberger Brown Armstrong 

What are the legal and practical implications of a private sector employer’s decision to impose temporary layoffs or require mandatory work from home programs as part of its response to COVID-19? 

 The question many employment lawyers are getting is, “what can I do to prevent the spread in my organization?”. While mandatory remote work and temporary layoffs are likely a component of the overall pandemic response, employers may ultimately run into the legal complication of a constructive dismissal claim. 

Constructive Dismissal and Temporary Layoffs

The leading Canadian case on constructive dismissal is Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission. Constructive dismissal comes in one of two forms. The first is that the employer has unilaterally altered or breached a substantial term of the contract of employment such that a reasonable person in the situation would consider themselves dismissed. The second form is that through a series of unilateral actions, the employer has demonstrated they no longer intend to be bound by the contract of employment. 

For the purposes of an immediate pandemic response, temporary lay-offs and remote work likely fall under the first form. The first place to look for an employer’s authority to conduct a temporary lay-off is the contract of employment. Does the contract provide the employer with the explicit or implicit right to lay-off an employee?The preferred approach would be explicit wording allowing a removal from the workplace in appropriate circumstances. Arguably, it is possible that a court could find that there is an implied contractual right to temporarily lay-off employees in the context of a pandemic.Without this explicit or implied term, it is likely that a temporary lay-off would constitute a breach of contract and provide potential grounds for a constructive dismissal.

If the contract allows for temporary layoffs, the duration is likely limited by section 56(2) of Ontario’s Employment Standards Act. Section 56(2)permits a temporary lay-off without triggering a “termination” under the Actif the lay-off is for a period of:

  • Less than 13 weeks in any period of 20 consecutive weeks, or
  • More than 13 weeks, but less than 35 weeks in a period of 52 consecutive weeks, assuming the employer complies with additional requirements.

These “allowable” temporary layoffs are only accessible if the underlying contract of employment provides the authority to temporarily lay off an employee.  

A recent decision, Gent v. Strone Inc. is instructive. Although this dealt with a downturn in business, rather than a pandemic, the basic legal considerations are relevant. In Gent,the employer temporarily laid off the plaintiff employee along with two other employees on October 15, 2015. As part of the layoff, the employer agreed to maintain the plaintiff’s benefits. On October 27, 2015, the employee retained a lawyer who advised the employer that the layoff constituted a constructive dismissal. On November 10, 2015, the employer sent a letter recalling the employee to “active employment.” He never returned and commenced a claim for constructive dismissal. 

Ultimately, the employee was successful in his claim for constructive dismissal. Pollack J. found that the failure to provide the employee with work and compensation was contrary to the fundamental terms of his employment. There was no provision that allowed for a temporary layoff. However, because the employee failed to return to work when his employer recalled him, Pollack J. found that he had failed to appropriately mitigate his losses. Instead of an award of 18 monthsof reasonable notice, the employee was only awarded 3.5 weeks. This was the difference between the date of layoff and the date of recall.

From a legal perspective, the unilateral decision to layoff an employee during the pandemic may trigger a claim for constructive dismissal. Whether the breach will be sufficient to support a claim for constructive dismissal will be case specific.Considerations such as whether the lay-off was paid, or unpaid, would likely be a relevant in determining whether this was a simple breach of the employment contract, or an outright constructive dismissal.

Given the ability for employers to re-employ individuals after the layoff, the practical consequences of these constructive dismissals may be perceived as minor. It is important to note that because the quantum of damages for a temporary layoff may be minimal, this should not be seen as encouraging employers to lay off employees in an arbitrary manner. Employers continue to have an obligation of good faith in the manner of dismissal. In periods of heightened anxiety brought on by a pandemic, employees may be particularly vulnerable to disruptions in employment. Employers who do not roll out effective practices may see additional claims for bad faith damages.

Mandatory Work from Home Programs

In the case of mandatory work from home requirements, the line is less clear. There have certainly been cases in Ontario where the removal of the ability to work from home has triggered a constructive dismissal. Generally speaking, working from home is considered a “benefit”. In Hagholm v. Coreio Inc.an employer was found to have constructively dismissed an employee when they unilaterally removed her ability to work from home several days per week. In the facts of that case, it was acknowledged that the ability to work from home was a condition precedent of her agreeing to continue to work with the company.

In the case of a forced remote work policy, the issue would need to be addressed on the facts of each case. An employee would likely have to demonstrate that forced work from home was detrimental in some way.[1] Working remotely is generally seen as a perk to employment. It allows greater flexibility for employees to manage their daily routines and cut down on time spent commuting. Conceivably, there could be situations where remote work could be considered a detriment. In the case of employers who provide significant “on site” benefits like free cafeterias, dry-cleaning services, or other benefits, a forced work from home policy could be considered detrimental. Whether this would be a “substantial” term of the contract would be up for debate. Working from home could also involve costs that if not reimbursed by the employer would result in an effective pay cut for the employee.Ultimately, it would be the novel case that resulted in a finding of a constructive dismissal for a work from home policy.

Practically speaking, the best way to avoid the risk of subsequent litigation is to ensure that employers maintain an open dialogue with their employees. Consistent messaging and regular updates on the impact of the disease on the business may go a long way to maintaining a working employment relationship. Where possible, work from home arrangements should be utilized. In mostcircumstances, it is unlikely that this would be seen as a constructive dismissal. In the case of temporary layoffs. employers should ensure that they are supportive of their employees as they look to obtain alternate sources of funding to assist during the temporary down time. Ultimately the situation is evolving on a daily basis, and all parties are best suited by clear, open, and consistent messaging on the situation. 

Devan Marr, “Constructive Dismissal in the time of COVID-19” Canadian Law of Work Forum (March 17 2020): https://lawofwork.ca/?p=11986


[1]Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission,2015 SCC 10 (CanLII), [2015] 1 SCR 500, par. 37, http://canlii.ca/t/ggkhh#par37

3 comments
2
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
Devan Marr

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

3 comments

Kristine April 22, 2020 - 3:13 pm

Our firm is reducing non-union staff hours by 20% yet still expecting them to work a full work week. There is no mention of retro-actively reimbursing employees for the “donated” extra day of work. This has not been formally communicated. Can you comment on if this is tantamount to constructive dismissal?

Log in to Reply
David Doorey April 22, 2020 - 3:40 pm

Kristine, if you mean that the employer is cutting pay by 20%, then that certainly sounds like a basis for a constructive dismissal finding. You’d want to have a consultation with an employment lawyer to go over all of the facts.

Log in to Reply
Travis July 1, 2020 - 7:27 pm

What about if I was at a job for a day and a half in April which the social distancing of that job was not being followed as I was far less then 6 feet from another employee? It was landscaping where someone was conducting a leaf blower and I had to stay infront with a rake so close that I could touch the person at times.. As I kept trying to stay away from the person I was repeatedly told I wasn’t doing the job correctly then I left the job. I got freaked out on btw so that why I left. Would that be grounds for a constructive dismissal? I didnt get paid or even have my Information took by the employer before I started although they called me a few times after I left the job and I have the missed call logs.

Log in to Reply
previous post
Employer Good Faith at the Supreme Court, Once Again
next post
Temperature screening for the coronavirus – necessary but not sufficient

You may also like

Why Gig Workers Are NOT Independent Contractors: A...

September 19, 2022

CUPW’s Unfair Labour Practice Complaint Against Uber Raises...

September 16, 2022

How Canadian Unions Responded to Vaccine Mandates, Protests,...

March 17, 2022

Reforming Non-Compete Law: A Cross Border Perspective

March 3, 2022

The Problem With Ontario’s Proposed Gig Worker Law...

February 28, 2022

Can Human Rights Law Help Workers Fired for...

February 18, 2022

Will Conservatives Add “Vaccine Status” to Human Rights...

February 9, 2022

Is UFCW’s Mysterious “Agreement” With Uber Lawful?

January 27, 2022

Would the Recommendations in Ontario’s New Report on...

December 10, 2021

The New European Platform Work Directive Through a...

December 9, 2021

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @CLJEHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

TheLawofWork
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
10h

I can’t believe that Almost Famous came out 23 years ago.

Time is flying by.

Reply on Twitter 1622776388179705859 Retweet on Twitter 1622776388179705859 3 Like on Twitter 1622776388179705859 14 Twitter 1622776388179705859
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
11h

I had an LLM student who had a part-time job phantom writing labor arbitration decisions based on arbitrator’s notes and instructions.

Like law clerks do for judges (except parties don’t know about the phantom arb writer).

Is using a machine different? Interesting debate.

Valerio De Stefano @valeriodeste

The crucial part starts on p. 5, where the Court reports the answers to the legal questions they posed to ChatGPT. Then, at the end of p. 6, the Court adopts the arguments given in these answers as grounds for its decision.

Reply on Twitter 1622759377944952834 Retweet on Twitter 1622759377944952834 5 Like on Twitter 1622759377944952834 8 Twitter 1622759377944952834
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
12h

Quebec passed anti-scab legislation in 1977, BC in 1993, & Ontario 1993-95.

Hysterical claims that these laws cause job losses & loss of investment aren't supported by evidence. Businesses just don't like them.

Short 🧵

1/

Seamus O'Regan Jr @SeamusORegan

We’re banning replacement workers, as we said on Oct. 19th.

We’re working with unions and employers to get the balance right.

As agreed, government will introduce legislation by the end of this year.

Reply on Twitter 1622745098088861702 Retweet on Twitter 1622745098088861702 16 Like on Twitter 1622745098088861702 39 Twitter 1622745098088861702
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.