CCPartners | Blog

2024 Year In Review: A Look Back At The Top Cases And Key Legislative Changes That Impacted Your Workplace

2024 has been a year of significant developments and noteworthy changes in the area of labour and employment law. Throughout the year, CCPartners has been keeping employers updated on these important labour and employment developments through our Employers’ Edge blog and our Lawyers for Employers webinars and podcast.

We are now pleased to provide a recap of the key cases and legislative changes from the past year, along with links to our original blogs for further reading.

Legislative Changes

• On March 21, 2024, Bill 149, Working for Workers Four Act, 2024 received Royal Assent in Ontario. The Bill amended several workplace law statutes:
• Amendments to the Employment Standards Act, 2000 included changes to the definition of an employee, wage deduction rules, how payment for tips or gratuities can be made, how vacation pay must be paid, and what must be included in advertised job postings.
• Amendments to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 included new super indexing provisions and a presumption in respect of primary-site esophageal cancer for firefighters and fire investigators.
• Amendments to the Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act, 2022 included allowing regulations to prescribe new limits on pay periods and rules for determining compliance with the minimum wage requirements.
• Amendments to the Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act, 2006 included that prescribed requirements must be met to determine whether a regulated profession assesses qualifications in a way that is transparent, objective, impartial and fair.
• On May 6, 2024, Bill 190, Working for Workers Five Act, 2024 was introduced in Ontario. It received Royal Assent on October 28, 2024. The Bill amended several workplace law statutes:
• Amendments to the Employment Standards Act, 2000 included changes to what evidence can be required for entitlement to a sick leave under the Act, an increase to the maximum fine for an individual convicted under the Act, new requirements as to what must be included in publicly advertised job postings and what information must be provided to applicants after job interviews.
• Amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act included changes to the definition of workplace harassment and workplace sexual harassment, where joint health and safety committee meetings can occur, and how copies of the OHSA and explanatory materials can be posted.
• Amendments to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 included new presumptions regarding PTSD and primary-site skin cancer in certain professions.
• On October 9, 2024, Bill 68, An Act mainly to reduce the administrative burden of physicians, received royal assent in Quebec. Bill 68 introduced amendments to the Act respecting labour standards (the “ALS”) and the Act to promote access to family medicine and specialized medicine services. These amendments included changes regarding when employers can require a medical certificate attesting to the reasons for an absence.
• On November 27, 2024, Bill 229, Working for Workers Six Act, 2024 was introduced in Ontario. It received Royal Assent on December 19, 2024. The Bill amended several workplace law statutes:
• Amendments to the Employment Standards Act, 2000 included a new job-protected long-term illness leave of absence and a new job-protected leave after the placement or arrival of a child into the employee’s custody, care and control through adoption or surrogacy.
• Amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act included the introduction of a minimum fine for any corporation found guilty of a second or subsequent offence under the OHSA that resulted in the death or serious injury of one or more workers in a two year period, a requirement for employers to ensure that any personal protective clothing and equipment is a proper fit and appropriate in the circumstances, and new powers to the Chief Prevention Officer and the  Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development.
• Amendments to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 included the introduction of surplus distribution amounts in the Insurance Fund to a Schedule 2 employer that is a municipality, provided certain prescribed requirements are met, and the extension of presumptions for prescribed firefighters and fire investigators for primary-site kidney cancer and primary-site colorectal cancer.

Top Labour and Employment Cases of 2024

• Lagala v. Patene Building Supples Ltd, 2024 ONSC 253: The Ontario Superior Court upheld the for cause dismissal of a health and safety manager for the mishandling of her own WSIB claim. The Court found that the Plaintiff’s misconduct, and her dishonesty when confronted with that misconduct, irretrievably destroyed her ability to carry out her employment responsibilities. The decision also demonstrated the importance of conducting a thorough workplace investigation prior to proceeding with a termination for cause.
• Dufault v. The Corporation of the Township of Ignace, 2024 ONSC 1029: The Ontario Superior Court ruled that a termination clause which stated that the Plaintiff’s employment could be terminated “at any time” was unenforceable, because there are circumstances under employment standards legislation in which termination is prohibited (e.g. on return on from a statutory job-protected leave).
• Dufault v. Ignace (Township), 2024 ONCA 915: The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision and reaffirmed the principle established in Waksdale v. Swegon North America Inc., 2020 ONCA 391, that when interpreting an employment agreement, all termination provisions must be read together and the invalidity of one termination provision renders all termination provisions unenforceable. In rendering its decision, the Court of Appeal declined to rule on the issue of whether a termination provision is void and unenforceable because it says that an employer may terminate an employee in the employer’s “sole discretion” and “at any time.”
• Shannon Horner v Stelco Inc. Lake Erie, 2024 CanLII 16448: The Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) provided direction on an employer’s obligations pursuant to section 32.0.7(1)(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. This section requires an employer to inform a worker, in writing, of the results of a harassment investigation and of any corrective action that has been taken or that will be taken as a result of the investigation. The OLRB held this requirement includes an obligation to inform a worker in writing of which respondents have been found to have engaged in harassment (in the case of multiple respondents) and the corrective action the employer will take. However, an employer is not obligated to provide a report of the factual findings, indicate the specific acts of harassment that were found to have occurred, or specify the level of discipline the employer may impose as part of any corrective action taken.
• Metrolinx v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1587, 2024 ONSC 1900: The Ontario Divisional Court quashed a concerning arbitration decision in which it had been found that five grievors should not have had their employment terminated as a result of inappropriate WhatsApp chats about a co-worker. The Court held that the arbitrator’s decision was not reasonable. The arbitrator’s conclusion that the matter should have ended once a co-worker stated she did not want to make a complaint or participate in an investigation, was wrong in law and contrary to the employer’s statutory obligations to investigate incidents of workplace harassment.
• Hurlbut v Low & Low Limited, 2024 CanLII 28332: The Ontario Small Claims Court considered whether an employee who was laid off during the COVID-19 pandemic had effectively resigned when she secured another job during her lay-off period. The findings of the Court significantly turned on an email sent by the plaintiff to her employer which stated: “I've had to take a temporary job … I'm hoping that when things blow over and restrictions are dropped that I can return to Low's.” The Court agreed that this email confirmed the plaintiff’s intention to return once circumstances allowed and that the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed when the employer mistakenly assumed her resignation.
• Croke v. VuPoint System Ltd., 2024 ONCA 354: The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a motion judge’s decision that an employment relationship was frustrated when the employee refused to abide by the employer’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccine policy.
• York Region District School Board v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2024 SCC 22: The Supreme Court of Canada found that the Charter applies to Ontario public school boards. In particular, the Supreme Court found that s.8 of the Charter, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, protects teachers from unreasonable search and seizure by those acting as agents of the school board.
• Ratz-Cheung v. BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., 2024 ONSC 161: The Ontario Superior Court provided support for the notion that an employer may be able to raise after-acquired cause even years after dismissing an employee, provided that the employer is learning about the alleged conduct for the first time. After-acquired cause concerns misconduct that took place during the employment but that is only discovered by the employer after the dismissal of the employee.
• R. v. Urgiles, 2024 ONSC 3382: The Ontario Superior Court of Justice held a supervisor guilty of criminal negligence causing death, pursuant to section 219 of the Criminal Code. The Court found that the supervisor instructed the driver to operate a truck, even after knowing that there was a potentially dangerous issue with the steering. The decision served as a warning to employers that their obligations are not only defined by the Occupational Health and Safety Act in Ontario, but can also be judged under the Criminal Code where substantial prison terms can and will be given for convictions.
• Aguele v. Family Options Inc., 2024 HRTO 991: The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario underscored that the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to grant a perfect or ideal accommodation, but rather one that is reasonable under the circumstances. The Tribunal determined that the employer’s offers in this case constituted reasonable accommodations and the applicant’s refusal to accept these reasonable alternatives effectively discharged the employer’s duty to accommodate.
• Gannon v. Kinsdale Carriers, 2024 ONSC 1060:  The Ontario Superior Court considered what constitutes “comparable employment” for the purpose of mitigation of reasonable notice damages. An employee was dismissed without cause after 22 years of employment due to the closure of the business. Upon informing the employee of her dismissal, the employer shared the contact information of another company in the same industry, for the employee to contact and seek employment. The employee proceeded to contact the other company and received an offer of employment but turned it down resorting to a “see what’s out there” approach. The Court found that the employee rejected “comparable employment” to her detriment and she was therefore not entitled to reasonable notice damages.
• International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (I.B.E.W.) Local 636 v Hydro Ottawa Limited, 2024 CanLII 78770: The Arbitrator dismissed a grievance where the Grievor claimed that the employer failed to accommodate her request to work from home during her pregnancy, as recommended by her physician. The Arbitrator emphasized that there no inherent right to work from home. While the Grievor may have found work from home more convenient during her pregnancy, the arbitrator noted that convenience alone does not constitute a right to accommodation.
• Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 v Toronto (City), 2024 CanLII 94967 (ON LA): The Arbitrator ruled on two preliminary objections stemming from a unionized worker’s complaints against his employer: 1) that the Arbitrator could not hear allegations of improper conduct against the worker that occurred after the worker’s employment ended, and 2) that the Arbitrator did not have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of constructive dismissal. The Arbitrator ruled that he could not hear evidence about the alleged post-employment incidents as the case law established that grievances under a collective agreement should be confined to those arising when someone is actually employed. The Arbitrator also ruled that he did not have the jurisdiction to consider the Grievor’s constructive dismissal complaint since the common law doctrine does not apply in the collective bargaining context.
• Bertsch v. Datastealth Inc., 2024 ONSC 5593: The Ontario Superior Court upheld the enforceability of a "with or without cause" termination provision that limited the employee's entitlement on termination of employment to the minimum standards set out in the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000. The case represented a departure from the Ontario Court's reluctance to enforce termination without cause provisions in recent years.
• Toronto Metropolitan Faculty Association v Toronto Metropolitan University, 2024 CanLII 109523 (ON LA): The Arbitrator found that, in the context of workplace investigations, retainer agreements give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Where an Employer has retained counsel to provide advice on a harassment or discrimination complaint, any ensuing investigation pursuant to their obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code or the Occupational Health and Safety Act should be performed by a separate investigator. If an employer wishes to use legal counsel for an investigation, care must be taken in terms of the scope of the retainer and the limits of privilege over same. 

CCP will continue to blog on new decisions and legislative changes affecting workplaces in Canada in 2025.  As always, the lawyers at CCPartners are always happy to help with any workplace questions or concerns you may have regarding your business!