Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

• Author: Administrator
• Date: August 05, 2015

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed* on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

1. Wyllie v Larche, 2015 ONSC 4747

[79] Mr. Wyllie’s entitlement under the Canada Labour Code is to payment in lieu of notice and to severance pay. He was paid two weeks remuneration in lieu of notice. He was additionally entitled to receive severance pay. Severance pay is distinct from payment in lieu of notice. If an employer decides to provide working notice of dismissal, that does not eliminate the requirement that he provide severance pay. In Mattiassi v. Hathrow Management Partnership, a 26-year employee was given 54 weeks’ working notice, plus an additional lump-sum payment equivalent to about two months of regular pay, for a total of 62 weeks of working notice/pay in lieu. The employee then sued for her statutory severance pay. The employer argued the total amount of notice and pay in lieu of notice that he had provided exceeded the statutory notice and severance requirements and he was not required to pay any additional amount. The court rejected this argument. The court considered the fact notice can be provided by way of working notice or pay in lieu. However, it held that the Employment Standards Act requirement of severance pay is separate and distinct from the notice requirement and is, by default, to be paid as a lump sum. The employer was ordered to pay a further amount for severance.[39]
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Goodswimmer v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 ABCA 253

[14] The appellants say that as they did not specifically plead the “legal advice”, they did not put it into issue. In our view, this submission treats the issue too narrowly. A significant aspect of this case concerns the enforceability of the Agreement. The issue raised by the pleadings is whether the appellants’ consent to the Agreement, including the release, was informed. In other words, what information did the appellants have at the relevant time? The appellants had legal advice before they signed the Agreement. The respondents rely upon the Agreement in defence of the allegations in the amended statement of claim, and upon the clause in the Agreement that specifically states that the appellants had legal advice. This case is on all fours with decisions such as Conlon v Conlon, [1952] 2 All ER 462, [1952] 2 TLR 343 (CA) and Nowak v Sanyshyn...