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)
Law of Work Archive

Is Statutory Overtime Pay an Implied Term of Employment Contracts

by David Doorey October 22, 2009
written by David Doorey October 22, 2009

We’ve been talking about implied terms in employment contracts in my courses.  These are terms that judges have made up over the years and incorporated into employment contracts.  The requirement to give reasonable notice of termination of the contract is the most famous example, but there are loads more that shape a very particular form of employment in Canada.
One issue the comes up is whether statutory requirements in employment standards legislation are implied contract terms.  For example, if the requirement to pay overtime pay after say 8 hours per day in employment standards legislation is also an implied contract term, then the employee has the choice of pursuing recovery of that benefit by filing an employment standards complaint before a tribunal or a breach of contract lawsuit in a court.  Often it is easier, faster, and cheaper to go the tribunal route, but sometimes it may make sense to seek the benefit in a lawsuit.  For example, there are often time limits in employment standards legislation (such as 6 months) by which time an ESA complaint must be made.  If an employee misses that time period, the option of suing for the overtime as a breach of contract may come in handy.
This issue was considered recently in a number of BC cases.  In Macareag v. E Care Contact Centres,  Madam Justice Wedge of the BC Supreme Court refused to follow a line of cases finding that an employee can’t recover statutory benefits in a contract case under the common law.  She ruled that the overtime provisions of the employment standards legislation are an implied term of employment contracts, and therefore an employee can recover unpaid overtime by suing the employer for breach of contract.  After a thorough summary of the case law, she ruled:

Employment rights of employees conferred by statute are implied by law into employment agreements irrespective of the parties’ subjective intentions.

However, the B.C. Court of Appeal overturned that decision, and the Supreme Court of Canada recently refused leave to hear an appeal of that Court’s ruling.  The Court of Appeal ruled that, as a general principle, rights created by a statute do not become implied terms of employment contracts and they are not enforceable in an action for breach of contract unless it is clear that the statute in question permits that to happen.  Since the B.C. employment standards legislation provides a comprehensive mechanism to claim overtime pay, there is no basis to include the intent was to permit workers to recover overtime entitlements in a breach of contract lawsuit.  This reasoning seems consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Seneca College v. Bhaudaria, in which it was ruled that that implied term prventing discrimination in employment should not be read into employment contracts, since the Human Rights legislation provides a comprehensive regime.
Postscript:  Thanks to one of the fine lawyers at the Toronto law firm of Heenan Blaikie for pointing out the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Evagalista v. Number 7 Sales, in which the Court ruled that the limitation period in section 96(3) of the ESA for recovery of statutory vacation pay does not apply to a civil suit alleging breach of contract.  Although the Court does not actually rule that entitlement to statutory vacation and holiday pay is an implied term of the employment contract, does that appear to you to be the inference?

0 comment
0
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 Comment Cancel Reply

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

previous post
Another Human Rights Violator?: York University
next post
Do Advanced HR Degrees Matter?

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

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

Join 219 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
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
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24 Feb

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
24 Feb

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 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
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.