Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Common Law of EmploymentCOVID-19Employment RegulationHuman Rights

COVID-19, Layoffs, and Employment Standards: An Introduction

by David Doorey March 18, 2020
written by David Doorey March 18, 2020

Written by David Doorey, York University

There has been a lot written lately on how COVID-19 interacts with the laws that govern work and employment, much of it quite complex because the issues are complex.  In this post, I want to go back to basics and review for employment law students (and anyone else interested) some fundamental points about employment standards legislation and the law of employment contracts as it applies to layoffs that might occur as a result of COVID-19.

Employment Standards Legislation Governs “Employment” Contracts

A first thing to remember is that employment standards (ES) legislation regulates “employment contracts”.  That might seem like an obvious point, but it needs to be emphasized because so many workers today perform work under relationships that might not be characterized as “employment” at all.  If the worker is a true “independent contractor”, for example, then ES legislation does not apply.  There are complex tests applied to determine if someone is an “employee” or an “independent contractor” and the fact that a contract describes someone as an “independent contractor” is not dispositive.  The tribunal will look at all of the circumstances of the work and decide if the worker more closely resembles an employee or an entrepreneur.  But if the worker is not an employee, then none of the entitlements and obligations in ES legislation apply.

Employment Standards Legislation Restricts Freedom of Contract

A second important point to understand about ES legislation is that it functions by restricting freedom of contract.  While it is possible for the parties to an employment contract to agree to terms and conditions that are better for the employee than what is required in ES legislation, they cannot agree to terms that provide less benefit or protection than required by the legislation.  This is made clear for example in section 5 of the Ontario ESAand similar provisions are found in ES legislation across Canada.

There can interesting debates about whether a contract provides a “greater benefit”, but the key point to understand is that an employer and employee cannot agree to something that is contrary to the ES legislation. For example, if an employee is being paid $10 per hour when the ES legislation includes a $14 per hour minimum wage, then the employer is violating the law.  It is no defence for the employer to say, “but the employee agreed to $10 per hour”.  Similarly, an employee cannot agree to waive the “notice of termination” or other protective provisions in the ES legislation.

Temporary Layoffs in the Common Law & Employment Standards Legislation

Now things get trickier. Thousands of employees in Canada, if not millions, may soon find that their employers have no work for them because the companies have been ordered to shut down or there is not enough work to keep the company operating.  Hopefully for most of these workers the layoff is temporary and not permanent.  The question many workers have is whether there are any legal protections or financial entitlements for employees who are laid off.  

Here we need to pause to recognize that there are three overlapping but distinct legal regimes that regulate employment and each regime may have something to say about this question.   See Figure 1.1., which is lifted from Chapter 1 of my Law of Work book.

Let’s first put the collective bargaining regime to one side: if you are a unionized employee, your collective agreement may describe what happens in the case of a layoff and so you should start there and with your union representatives who can answer your questions.  In this post, I want to focus on non-union employees who are governed by both employment standards legislation and the common law of the employment contract. [Note that I’m mostly leaving aside other statutes that also come into play in the case of COVID-19, including human rights and OHS legislation]. 

  1. The Common Law

The common law involves the rules of contract interpretation judges apply when interpreting and enforcing employment contracts. If there is any obligation for the employer to pay an employee during a layoff it would need to be found in the contract.  There may be contractual entitlements to sick pay if an employee contracts COVID-19. You would need to look at the contract to see what benefits exist. An important point about the common law is that judges rarely reinstate employees to their jobs, even if the reason for the termination was unlawful. Terminated employees who sue their employers are usually fighting about damages (lost wages and benefits), not reinstatement.

In the common law, a temporary layoff is usually considered to be a serious breach of contract that the employee can opt to treat as terminating the contract (a constructive dismissal, as explained by lawyer Devan Marr in this post on CLWF), unless there is an expressed or implied term in the contract permitting a temporary layoff.  This is because a layoff involves the employer saying, essentially, “you aren’t permitted to come to work for a while” when “coming to work” is the basis of the contract.  It’s an interesting question whether a court would “imply” a contract term permitting layoffs as a response to loss of work caused by a pandemic. Reasonable lawyers could disagree on the answer. 

I think it is safe to assume that a constructive dismissal would not result from a layoff caused by a government order for the employer to temporarily close.  But if a layoff results from a downturn in business (a lack of work), and there is no expressed or implied contract term permitting the employer to temporarily layoff an employee, then a laid off employee who is prepared to give up their job could quit and file a lawsuit alleging that the layoff constitutes a termination (a constructive dismissal). The damages the employee would be seeking would be lost wages and benefits for the period of notice of termination required by the contract.  That notice period is either expressed in the contract or, if not, it is whatever a judge decides is “reasonable notice”.   

The risk of filing a constructive dismissal lawsuit is that you are forfeiting your right to be recalled if business picks up, and there is also a chance that you could lose the case if the judge either: (1) implies a term permitting temporary layoffs arising from complications due to an international pandemic; or (2) finds that the employment contract has become “frustrated” as a result of the pandemic putting the company out of business. Frustration is a legal doctrine that essentially treats a contract as coming to an end through the fault of neither party due to an event that renders it impossible for the contract to be performed. The classic example is an “Act of God” destroying a workplace. If frustration occurs, both parties are relieved of any obligations under the contract, including the obligation to provide notice of termination. Again, reasonable lawyers could disagree about whether a court would apply frustration to the various circumstances that might arise owing to a loss of work or a business failing related to COVID-19.  

An employee who loses a constructive dismissal lawsuit is treated as having quit, which can disqualify the employee from unemployment insurance, the possibility of termination pay, and from the federal government’s new Emergency Response Fund, so employees considering making an argument that they have been constructively dismissed should speak to an employment lawyer first.

Temporary Layoffs and Employment Standards Legislation

ES legislation also requires employers to provide employees with notice of termination.  Compared to the amount of notice courts imply as “reasonable notice” in the common law regime, “statutory notice of termination” is quite short. For example, in Ontario the amount of notice required by the ESA maxes out at 8 weeks for employees with 8 or more years’ of service (unless 50 or more employees are terminated within a 4 week period, which triggers additional notice requirements up to 16 weeks).  In Ontario and the federal sector, there are additional requirements for “severance pay” for employees in some circumstances. “Reasonable notice” for a long-service employee in the common law regime can reach up to as much as two years.

However, the statutory requirements for notice of termination (or pay in lieu of notice, called “termination pay”) and severance pay are only triggered when there has been a “termination” of employment as that term is defined in the ES legislation. The legislation defines when a “temporary layoff” becomes a “termination”.  This gets confusing because although a temporary layoff may be treated as a constructive dismissal (i.e. a termination) in the law of contracts (see above), ES legislation permits a temporary layoff in some provinces (including Ontario) to take place for a while before the statutory requirement for the employer to provide termination and severance pay kicks in.  

For example, in Ontario, section 56 of the ESA includes a multi-pronged definition of when a temporary layoff becomes a termination, the easiest part of which is that a layoff is a termination when it lasts more than 13 weeks in any period of 20 weeks. That means once a layoff surpasses 13 weeks (without a recall in the interim), the requirement for the employer to give statutory notice and severance pay kicks in. So an employee who is laid off for a long period may eventually be entitled to termination (and possibly severance pay) under ES legislation.  

The takeaway is that if an employee is laid off during the COVID-19 epidemic, then for the purposes of ES legislation, they are not considered to be “terminated” at least for a while.  Their employment is interrupted. There is no present statutory requirement for the employer to pay the employee during a temporary layoff although some employers opt to do so. In most provinces at present there is also no ES entitlement to paid sick leave, although some provinces have indicated an intention to introduce some form of paid leave entitlement (nice summary here from Faskens).   An employee who is laid off during the COVID-19 epidemic may be entitled to use accrued vacation pay and can apply for unemployment insurance. 

There are entitlements to take unpaid sick leave if an employee contracts a virus ranging in length in ES legislation across Canada as well as various other leaves, such as leaves to care for sick family members.  Moreover, most provinces have now introduced some form of extended leave entitlement for workers affected by COVID-19. For example, in Ontario, a person who can’t work because of a COVID-19 related reason (including having to care for a family member or for children whose school has closed) is protected by a new extended leave provision.  Check your province for the scheme in place there.


The significance of statutory leaves is that they come accompanied by a right of the ES tribunals to reinstate employees terminated for taking the leave. This is important. An employee terminated for taking a leave that it is not authorized by statute might be entitled to termination pay, but the ES tribunal will not be empowered to order the employer to rehire the employee. 

Lastly, employment standards legislated has adopted many of the exemptions to the requirement for employers to provide notice of termination found in the common law, including when performance of a contract has become “frustrated by a fortuitous or unforeseeable event of circumstance”.  This opens the door to an argument by employers that there is no obligation to provide employees with statutory notice or severance pay when the termination was due to COVID-19 causing a workplace to close or even causing an extended layoff. Once again, reasonable lawyers could disagree over whether that exception would or should apply. The ability to make a frustration argument could be foreclosed by new legislation being drafted to protect workers during these very difficult times.

Updated on March 27 2020.

David Doorey, “COVID-19, Layoffs, and Employment Standards: An Introduction” Canadian Law of Work Forum (March 17 2020): http://lawofwork.ca/covid-19-layoffs-and-employment-standards-an-introduction/

6 comments
1
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Reply to BRENDAN ROONEY Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

6 comments

Ronni Nordal March 18, 2020 - 10:15 pm

Section 2-60 of the Saskatchewan Employment Act provides statutory notice in the case of layoff or termination. Section 2-1(l) states “layoff” means the temporary interruption by an employer of the services of an employee for a period exceeding six consecutive work days. I believe Saskatchewan workers who are temporarily laid off due to COVID 19 are entitled to receive the minimum statutory notice or pay in lieu.

Reply
Greg DuCharme March 20, 2020 - 3:29 pm

is the law clear that where there is a lockdown order .. making it an offence to come into work that the employer has no obligation to pay the worker?

Reply
BRENDAN ROONEY March 21, 2020 - 11:53 am

I am an hourly paid public school teacher in Montreal. My question is are we going to receive our salary during the school closure.
Thank you,
Brendan

Reply
Karen Baird March 21, 2020 - 1:12 pm

In Ontario a employment contract can be verbal, implied or written under ESA. I had a friend recently tell me that you cannot lay off an employee without a written contract. Even though ESA states rules around lay off, and as I mentioned before a employment agreement must not be written. I understand a written unambiguous employment agreement gives an Employer more protection.
Is it illegal to lay off a person in the absence of a “written” employment agreement?

Reply
David Doorey March 21, 2020 - 3:16 pm

Karen, this is not legal advice. Speaking in general, a layoff is a breach of the employment contract unless there is an expressed or implied term permitting the employer to lay off. A written contract might have a term permitting a layoff, less likely in the case of a verbal contract, but it’s always possible in certain circumstances that there could be an implied term. When we say a layoff is a breach of contract, what me mean is that in contract law an employee could treat the layoff as a termination (a constructive dismissal) and claim “reasonable notice” in the case of a non-written contract. The termination will still stand–the employee still loses her job–but she can sue for “damages” amounting to wages/benefits she would have earned during the notice period. This is tricky, so an employee thinking of doing would be wise to talk to an employment lawyer first.

Reply
James Watters March 25, 2020 - 3:15 pm

Is there a required 2 week notice of layoff required or pay in lieu of notice

Reply
previous post
Temperature screening for the coronavirus – necessary but not sufficient
next post
Targeted Basic Income: An Equitable Policy Response to COVID-19

You may also like

What Does Uber’s Decision to Treat Drivers as...

March 17, 2021

Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure...

February 24, 2021

Flores v Scotlynn Sweetpac Growers Inc.: Migrant Workers...

February 3, 2021

Calling the Shots: Is Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination a...

January 29, 2021

Does COVID Justify Longer Periods of Reasonable Notice?

January 25, 2021

Is “60 the New 50” in Assessing Length...

January 13, 2021

Would Rioting at Canada’s Parliament Building Be Grounds...

January 8, 2021

Canadian Bar Association Podcast: “After the Pandemic: Protecting...

December 17, 2020

Arbitrator: Employees Must Get Swabbed for COVID

December 16, 2020

“Autonomous Worker” Regulation

December 1, 2020

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 227 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
17 Mar

New on @CanLawWorkForum from Prof David Doorey (@TheLawofWork)

#Uber #WorkerClassification #EmpLaw

David J. Doorey@TheLawofWork

Lots of chatter about Uber announcing it will kind of, sort of treat drivers as "workers" in the UK.

How does the UK's "worker" category compare to Canada's "dependent contractor" status? Some thoughts in my new post here on @CanLawWorkForum:

https://lawofwork.ca/uberworkerstatus/

Reply on Twitter 1372255751985631237Retweet on Twitter 13722557519856312371Like on Twitter 13722557519856312371Twitter 1372255751985631237
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
10 Mar

Good day to reflect back on this recent timely post explaining the PRO Act that would dramatically alter U.S. labor law.

For labor law students:

What changes in the PRO Act are already law in all or parts of Canada?

David J. Doorey@TheLawofWork

A primer for Canadians by ⁦@Harvard_Law⁩’s Jonathan Levitan on what is contained in the U.S. Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO Act) which recently passed in the House south of the border.

(From ⁦@CanLawWorkForum⁩) https://lawofwork.ca/amp/bidenagenda

Reply on Twitter 1369671304274608134Retweet on Twitter 13696713042746081341Like on Twitter 13696713042746081342Twitter 1369671304274608134
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24 Feb

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • 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
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • 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.