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
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 Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

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

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

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

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

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

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 ·
1h

It’s crazy that fast food restaurants include non-competes in employment contracts for cooks and front line staff to stop them from leaving.

Never mind whether it’s legal—in Canada, those clauses are definitely not enforceable—it’s just sleazy. Terrible ethics.

Sandeep Vaheesan @sandeepvaheesan

Nice!

Reply on Twitter 1623168822235615232 Retweet on Twitter 1623168822235615232 5 Like on Twitter 1623168822235615232 9 Twitter 1623168822235615232
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
1h

President Biden calls for passage of #PROAct

Act bans employer captive audience anti-union meetings;

Expands def of “employee” to capture essentially what we call “dependent contractors” in Canada;

Increase penalties for unfair labor practices;

Doesn’t adopt card-check.

Steven Greenhouse @greenhousenyt

President Biden: "I'm so sick and tired of companies breaking the law when workers are seeking to unionize"

Reply on Twitter 1623164729530191874 Retweet on Twitter 1623164729530191874 Like on Twitter 1623164729530191874 7 Twitter 1623164729530191874
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
5h

My fingers are just too big to play an A chord on the #guitar.

Otherwise I would be a rock star. This is the only thing holding me back.

Reply on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Retweet on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Like on Twitter 1623109078431027200 12 Twitter 1623109078431027200
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.