In Wigdor v. Facebook Canada Ltd., 2026 ONCA 572, the Court held that language stopping RSU vesting immediately upon termination was unenforceable because it purported to stop vesting during the employee’s statutory notice period, contrary to Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000.

What happened?

Daniel Wigdor’s compensation included RSUs issued by Meta Platforms, Inc.. The RSU agreements stated that unvested awards would be forfeited when employment ended and would not continue to vest during any statutory, contractual, or common law notice period.
The Court concluded that continued vesting was a term or condition of employment that could not be altered during the statutory notice period. As a result, the forfeiture language was void.

Without enforceable language removing the common law entitlement, Daniel Wigdor was awarded approximately US$4.7 million for RSUs that would have vested during his 10-month reasonable notice period.

Key Takeaways

Employers that offer RSUs, stock options, bonuses, or other incentive compensation should:

• review provisions that trigger forfeiture immediately upon termination;
• ensure vesting and participation continue for at least the statutory notice period where required;
• avoid assuming that a general ESA saving clause will cure otherwise non-compliant language;
• review employment agreements and incentive plans together; and
• calculate potential equity exposure before finalizing a termination package.

The decision also confirms that prior service arising from a sale of business may affect the enforceability of a termination clause and cannot be overlooked when preparing new employment agreements.

Conclusion

The cost of getting equity compensation language wrong can be significant. Employers should review their employment agreements and equity plan documents now, rather than waiting until a termination places those provisions under scrutiny.

If you would like to discuss the any of the above or need any other assistance, please don’t hesitate to reach out to speak to an e2r® Advisor.

The post Employers: It May Be Time to Revisit Your Equity Plans appeared first on Woolgar VanWiechen Cosgriffe Ducoffe LLP.

Specifically, several judicial decisions in Ontario have come to inconsistent conclusions regarding whether the use of the words “at any time” or “for any reason” invalidate what would otherwise be an enforceable termination clause limiting an employee’s entitlements at termination to legislative minimum requirements.

The Case
In Baker v. Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc.; Li v. Wayfair Canada ULC, 2026 ONCA 568, the Ontario Court of Appeal jointly heard the appeal of two lower court decisions which came to opposite conclusions regarding the use of “at any time” or “for any reason” language in a termination provision.

The Court of Appeal’s intention in hearing the cases together was to provide certainty for both employers and employees as to whether this type of language is enough to invalidate an otherwise enforceable termination provision.

In reaching its conclusion, the Court of Appeal applied a common sense approach to contractual interpretation. The Court of Appeal ruled that courts should consider the intent of the parties as set out in the employment agreement, rather than seek to find ways to deviate from that intent in favour of a hypothetical or highly technical contractual interpretation.

As stated by the Court: “The determination of the meaning of an employment contract is still an exercise in contractual interpretation. The modern approach to contractual interpretation has shifted away from technical and legalistic formulations and towards a ‘practical, common-sense approach’ that focuses on the objective intention of the parties in light of the words used and the surrounding circumstances…the overriding concern is to ascertain what the parties would have reasonably understood their words to mean and to ensure the parties’ objective intention is not thwarted by strict rules of interpretation…courts must read the contract as a whole, giving the words used their ordinary and grammatical meaning, consistent with the surrounding circumstances known to the parties at the time of formation of the contract.”

In applying this approach, the Court determined the use of the words “at any time” or “for any reason” do not invalidate a termination provision if the surrounding language in the contract demonstrates a clear intention to comply with legislation and ensure that under no circumstance an employee would receive less than their minimum statutory entitlements.

Key Takeaways
While employment contracts will continue to face a higher level of scrutiny given the power imbalance between employers and employees, the Baker decision should be welcome news to employers.

The Court’s focus on the objective intentions of the parties to comply with the legislation demonstrates a significant shift toward a common sense-based approach to contractual interpretation in employment law.

However, it is still prudent to have an e2r® Advisor review and provide advice regarding an employee’s termination entitlements before the termination occurs.

Conclusion
If you have questions about the case, your organization’s employment contracts, or how this decision impacts internal planning for employee departures, please reach out to ClientCare to connect with an Advisor.

The post Common Sense in Employment Law? Who Knew! appeared first on Woolgar VanWiechen Cosgriffe Ducoffe LLP.

To ensure employers in Ontario have met current accessibility requirements under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (“AODA”), a compliance report must be filed periodically to the Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility.

If you are a business or non-profit organization with 20 or more employees in Ontario, you must file an accessibility compliance report every 3 years. The deadline to file is December 31, 2026.

Designated public sector organizations have reporting obligations every two years. The deadline for the report was December 31, 2025. You still need to file the 2025 report if you missed the 2025 deadline.

To file the report, you need your organization’s:

legal name
business number (BN9 in your federal or provincial tax return)
number of employees
name and contact information of your certifier (a senior officer with legal authority to say that the report is complete and accurate)

As a reminder, the AODA is a law that sets out a process for developing and enforcing accessibility standards. Under AODA, accessibility standards have been created that organizations must follow.

Failure to complete the accessibility compliance report by the deadline may result in enforcement measures which can include financial penalties.

If you require any assistance in this regard, please do not hesitate to reach out to speak with an e2r® Advisor.

The post Ontario Employers – File Your Accessibility Compliance Report by December 31, 2026 appeared first on Woolgar VanWiechen Cosgriffe Ducoffe LLP.

Pay Transparency Act (the “Act”)

Effective June 12, 2026, employers operating in New Brunswick will be:

1. Required to include the expected salary or hourly wages (or ranges) in both external and internal job postings.
2. Prohibited from seeking pay history information about an applicant by any means (either directly or through a third party), unless that compensation history is publicly accessible.
3. Prohibited from relying on past compensation when making hiring or compensation decisions, where compensation history is known.
4. Required to prepare and submit an annual Pay Transparency report, where they employ more then 50 employees. It is expected that employers with 100 or more employees will be required to report on or before March 31, 2029, while employers with between 50 to 99 employees will be required to report on or before March 31, 2030. The specifics of the report have not been finalized.

The Act also contains provisions that have not yet come into force. They prohibit an employer from disciplining an employee because they discussed their compensation and/or exercised a right under the Act. Employers will also be prohibited from using non-disclosure agreements to prevent employees from discussing their compensation.

Long-Term Illness and Injury Leave

New Brunswick has also updated its Employment Standards Act to include a new leave entitlement for employees. Effective June 12, 2026, employees are entitled to take an unpaid leave of up to 27 weeks during any 52-week period if they are unable to work due to a serious illness or injury. The leave is only eligible to be taken after the employee has completed 90 days of employment and each period of the leave must be at least 1 week long. Employers may request supporting medical documentation, and employees are required to provide notice for the anticipated start and end of their leave. Re-instatement requirements would be consistent with other statutory leaves.

Employers with operations in New Brunswick should review and update their job postings, compensation plans, employment agreements, workplace policies, and practices to ensure compliance with the new legislative requirements. If you require assistance, please don’t hesitate to reach out to speak to an e2r® Advisor.

The post Legislative Changes in New Brunswick appeared first on Woolgar VanWiechen Cosgriffe Ducoffe LLP.

According to the provincial government, the Act is designed to modernize employment standards while strengthening the rights and responsibilities of both employers and employees.

Key changes include:

• Medical Leave: Eligible employees are entitled to up to 27 weeks of unpaid, job-protected medical leave for qualifying absences related to long-term illness or injury, organ or tissue donation, gender-affirming care, and certain other approved medical procedures.
• Sick Leave: Eligible employees are entitled to 4 unpaid sick days per year after completing 30 days of employment. Employers may generally request medical documentation only where an employee has been absent for five or more consecutive days, and the documentation may be provided by certain licensed health professionals, where permitted under the Act.
• Hours of Work and Scheduling: The standard maximum work week is reduced from 48 hours to 44 hours (subject to certain industry-specific exceptions).
  • Employers must provide employees with their work schedules at least 1 week in advance, except where extenuating circumstances make this impracticable.
  • Employees must receive at least 8 hours of rest between shifts, subject to limited exceptions.
• Vacation: Employees are now entitled to 3 weeks of vacation after 5 years of employment, rather than 8 years.
  • The Act also clarifies vacation-related rules for part-time, seasonal and short-term employees.
• Termination and Group Layoffs: Employees are entitled to statutory notice of termination after 90 days of employment, reduced from the previous 6-months eligibility requirement.

• • New group termination provisions require employers that meet specified thresholds to provide 6 weeks’ notice to affected employees, any applicable union, and the provincial government.
• Complaints and Fines: The limitation period for filing complaints with the Employment Standards Branch has increased from 1 year to 2 years
  • Inspectors are now authorized to issue administrative penalties ranging from $500 to $1,500 for non-compliance, without requiring a court process.
  • Maximum court-imposed fines have increased to $25,000 for corporations and $5,000 for individuals, with minimum fines of $1,000 and $200, respectively.

Employers with operations in Prince Edward Island should review their employment agreements, workplace policies, and practices to ensure compliance with the new legislative requirements. If you require assistance, please don’t hesitate to reach out to speak to an e2r® Advisor.

The post PEI’s NEW Employment Standards Act appeared first on Woolgar VanWiechen Cosgriffe Ducoffe LLP.

In Ontario, the answer appears to be yes, but only with careful structuring. The Employment Standards Act, 2000 strictly limits how wages may be paid: by cash, cheque payable only to the employee, or direct deposit. Ontario government guidance reinforces that non-wage benefits may supplement compensation but generally cannot replace wages that must be paid using one of those statutory methods.

The leading case remains Yujie Hou v. Kinglory Inc. (2023), where the employer attempted to pay employees a fixed dollar salary partly in a company-issued cryptocurrency. The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that this arrangement was inconsistent with the ESA because the contract described the compensation as salary in dollars, and the employer could not satisfy part of that wage obligation using crypto. The Board emphasized that wages must be payable in a form that can readily be used for basic living expenses and found the employer had not established that the cryptocurrency in question met that standard.

Importantly, the Board’s later reasoning suggests the door may not be entirely closed. Had the contract instead characterized the arrangement as a lower base salary paid in ESA-compliant form, plus a separate crypto-based benefit or incentive, the analysis may have been different. In other words, the legal issue is less about whether digital assets can ever form part of compensation, and more about whether they are being used to replace wages or to supplement them.

Key Takeaways

For employers considering crypto-denominated compensation, the safest approach at present is to:

• pay base wages in Canadian dollars using legislatively-compliant methods;
• structure any crypto feature as a separate, supplemental benefit, bonus, or incentive, not as wages;
• make participation voluntary and clearly documented; and
• provide fulsome disclosure regarding volatility, valuation, conversion mechanics, and the absence of guarantees, while also considering constructive dismissal risk if the digital-asset component makes up a meaningful portion of total compensation.

While Canada’s digital asset framework continues to evolve — including the enactment of the Stablecoin Act through Bill C-15 and the launch of a regulated CAD-backed stablecoin — those developments do not change current employment standards requirements governing the payment of wages. For now, the most defensible path is to treat crypto as a supplemental compensation feature, not a substitute for salary.

If you would like to discuss the any of the above or need any other assistance please don’t hesitate to reach out to speak to an e2r® Advisor.

The post Paying Employees in Crypto? Not as “Far Out” as You Think appeared first on Woolgar VanWiechen Cosgriffe Ducoffe LLP.

The Case
Arbitrator Lindsay Lawrence was tasked with determining whether the termination for cause of a cook in a unionized workplace was justified after the employer, a retirement residence, discovered credible evidence the employee had stolen food from the kitchen.

The employee’s union grieved the termination seeking reinstatement and backpay.

During the hearing, video footage was produced showing the employee loading several scoopfuls of mashed potatoes onto a plate, covering it in saran wrap, and hiding it away to take home later. The employee was also observed taking an item from the kitchen freezer, which they concealed under their apron. The employee testified the item was a chicken carcass.

The parties provided conflicting information both as to whether the employee had received approval to take the chicken carcass and whether the mashed potatoes represented part of a permitted employee meal plan.

Arbitrator Lawrence found the employee’s conduct, as identified in the video footage, clearly showed attempts to conceal the removal of the food from the kitchen, indicating they knew what they were doing was wrong. Specifically, Arbitrator Lawrence determined: “It would be unusual to sit down and eat seven scoops of mashed potatoes. Seven scoops of mashed potatoes is a heaping plate full… It is improbable that [the employee], who had been serving dinner at the residence for years, decided that 5 pm was the right time to eat a heaping plate full of potatoes”.

Key Takeaways
Despite the employee’s nearly 10 years of service without any previous instances of misconduct, Arbitrator Lawrence upheld the employer’s decision to terminate for cause. The basis for her decision was: 1) the evidence supported the employee knew what they were doing; 2) the employee knew that what they were doing was wrong; and 3) the employee did not take accountability for their actions.

Arbitrator Lawrence was not influenced by the small monetary value of the food items taken by the employee. Instead, she followed consistent reasoning from courts and tribunals in finding that an employee’s intent is a key factor in determining whether workplace misconduct justifies their termination for cause. Arbitrator Lawrence also placed significant importance on the employee’s lack of remorse and accountability.
Following these principles, Arbitrator Lawrence concluded that “the employment relationship [was] irreparably harmed and no longer viable” due to the employee’s misconduct and lack of accountability.

Conclusion
Vegetable theft or otherwise, if your workplace discovers credible evidence of an employee engaging in intentional workplace misconduct, reach out to schedule a call with an e2r® Advisor to discuss how best to follow an objectively fair and reasonable process in confirming the intentional element of the misconduct and, where appropriate, proceeding with a termination for cause.

The post Not So Small Potatoes: Minor Workplace Theft Confirmed as Valid Basis for Cause appeared first on Woolgar VanWiechen Cosgriffe Ducoffe LLP.

In 2023, an employment standards officer was investigating a complaint made by a Boston Pizza employee in Pembroke in relation to their entitlements under the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”).

During the course of the investigation, the restaurant’s manager stated that the employee was not entitled to termination pay because they were terminated for cause/wilful misconduct. As a result, the officer requested they produce records to substantiate their position, and the restaurant manager provided records to the officer which included complaint forms from customers and a co-worker about the employee.

The officer continued to make inquiries and determined the documents were fake – the customers and the coworker had not made any complaint.

Providing false or misleading information to an employment standards officer is a violation of the ESA, which is also an offence under section 132 of the Provincial Offences Act (“Act”).

Following a guilty plea in March 2026, the restaurant manager was fined $15,000. The court also imposed a 25% victim fine surcharge required by the Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.

As a reminder…
An employer or other person who is believed to have committed an offence under the ESA can be prosecuted under the Act. It is an offence for an employer or other person to:

• contravene the ESA or regulations
• make or keep false records or other documents that must be kept under the ESA
• provide false or misleading information under the ESA
• fail to comply with an order, direction or other requirement under the ESA or regulations

If convicted, the employer or other person could be subject to a fine or a term of imprisonment or both. Individuals, if convicted of an offence, can be fined up to $100,000, imprisoned for up to 12 months, or both.

A corporation can be fined up to $100,000 for a first conviction. If the corporation has already been convicted of an offence under the ESA, it can be fined up to $250,000 for a second conviction. For a third or subsequent conviction, the corporation can be fined up to $500,000.

If an Officer arrives to conduct a proactive inspection or if a complaint has been filed against you – take it seriously! And as always, contact e2r® for advice and support.

The post Ontario Restaurant Manager Fined $15,000 for Falsified Records appeared first on Woolgar VanWiechen Cosgriffe Ducoffe LLP.

In these situations, it is important to keep in mind that employment human rights protections start the moment contact is made with a potential employee through to the cessation of employment. Simply put, the moment that a candidate applies for a job they have an inherent right not to be discriminated against based on the applicable prohibited grounds. Questions during the interview process and/or post offer that revolve around a protected ground could expose the company to a human rights complaint.

In Ontario, and in other jurisdictions, there is not much that you can do to prevent hiring an employee on a fixed term work permit. The candidate has the right not to be discriminated against based on citizenship and work permit status. An employer’s failure to hire or removal of an offer of employment based on these reasons may amount to direct discrimination.

Case Law – Imperial Oil Limited v. Haseeb (2023 ONCA 364)
In this case, Mr. Haseeb held a Post-Graduate Work permit for 3 years and applied for a position at Imperial Oil Limited (the “Company”). During the interview process Mr. Haseeb was asked about his eligibility to “work in Canada on a permanent basis” and he answered “yes” despite only holding a 3-year work permit. Mr. Haseeb was provided with a job offer, with the condition of providing proof of his eligibility to work in Canada on a permanent basis. When he was unable to provide this the Company rescinded the offer. Mr. Haseeb brought a human rights application claiming that he was discriminated against on the basis of citizenship.

The Company argued that its policy did not discriminate on the basis of citizenship given permanent residents can meet the requirements. The Company argued in the alternative that the policy was a bona fide occupational requirement because of the investment made by the Company in training new recruits and the Company’s expectation that the recruits spent their entire careers with the Company in positions of progressive responsibility. Furthermore, the Company argued that their loss of investment in Mr. Haseeb in the event he did not obtain permanent residence status would amount to undue hardship. Finally, the Company argued that it rescinded the offer not because of Mr. Haseeb’s residency status but in light of his dishonesty in the application process

The Ontario Court of Appeal restored the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and found that employers cannot discriminate against job candidates who do not have Canadian permanent residence status or citizenship but are legally able to work in Canada.

Employers across the country should take this decision to heart and review their hiring practices to ensure candidates are not being screened out based on their ability to permanently work in Canada. If you have any questions regarding your hiring practices or policies, please don’t hesitate to reach out to speak to an e2r® Advisor.

The post Human Rights Protections (Citizenship) appeared first on Woolgar VanWiechen Cosgriffe Ducoffe LLP.

Layoff vs. termination — why the distinction matters
While a temporary layoff is not a termination, the difference can be easy to overlook.

Under the ESA, a temporary layoff allows an employer to pause an employee’s work without ending the employment relationship, as long as the layoff stays within specific time limits and statutory conditions. A termination, by contrast, ends the employment relationship and triggers obligations such as notice of termination, severance pay (where applicable), and benefit continuation.

Reminder:

• If a layoff exceeds ESA time limits or fails to meet required conditions, it is deemed a termination
• Even if ESA rules are met, a layoff may still constitute constructive dismissal unless the employment contract expressly allows layoffs

Employers must assess temporary layoffs for both ESA compliance and contractual risk.

Extended temporary layoffs (beyond 35 weeks)
Employers may now implement layoffs lasting up to 52 weeks in a 78-week period, but only if strict conditions are met:

• A written agreement with the employee
• A defined recall date disclosed in advance
• Approval from the Director of Employment Standards
• Record retention for at least three years

Failure to meet any of these requirements can result in the layoff being deemed a termination, triggering notice and severance obligations.

Why this matters for employers:
While these changes provide greater flexibility, they also increase complexity and risk:

• A non‑compliant layoff may be deemed a termination under the ESA
• Even compliant layoffs may trigger constructive dismissal claims if not expressly permitted by contract
• Poor documentation can lead to unexpected severance obligations

Ontario’s expanded rules offer more flexibility—but only if applied carefully. Employers should clearly distinguish between layoffs and terminations and ensure their contracts, policies, and processes are aligned to manage risk.

If your organization is reviewing workforce strategies or updating employment agreements, please don’t hesitate to reach out to speak to an e2r® Advisor.

The post Ontario Expands Temporary Layoff Rules appeared first on Woolgar VanWiechen Cosgriffe Ducoffe LLP.