Inna Koldorf | Toronto Employment Lawyer

Piercing the corporate veil: Directors may now be personally liable to employees for debts of the corporation

Labour and Employment Law Perspective June

2010

Although in the eyes of the law a corporation is thought to possess a legal personality that is separate and distinct from its directors, in enacting section 131 of the OBCA (and similar sections in other jurisdictions) the legislature obviously felt that employees should be given greater protection than ordinary creditors. A director’s liability to employees for debt owed by the corporation is secondary to that of the corporation; efforts must be made to collect the debt from the corporation first or it must be shown that the corporation is bankrupt and unlikely to satisfy the debt. Section 131 of the OBCA seems to be a good compromise between leaving employee creditors without recourse on the one hand and protecting the corporate veil on the other. If nothing else, it is hoped that as more decisions are issued under section 131 of the OBCA, employers would become more proactive in ensuring that employees’ wages and benefits are fully paid before the corporation is no longer able to do so.

Employee's personal communication using employer's e-mail not within employer's custody or control, Divisional Court rules

Labour and Employment Law Perspective June

2011

It Is Now Confirmed: Human Rights Tribunals Do Not Have A Monopoly Over Human Rights Issues

Ontario Bar Association Administrative Law Section Newsletter November

2011

Do Not Take Advantage of Terminated Employees, Court Tells Employer

Work Matters The OBA Labour and Employment Law Newsletter December

2012

If at First You Don't Succeed, Tough Luck: Courts Put an End to Forum Shopping

National Journal of Constitutional Law July

2012

A review of the affect that the Divisional Court's decision in Trozzi and the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Figliola had on the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal's application of S. 45.1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Dismissed Employees are Required to Accept Re-employment or Risk Denial of Damages

Ontario Bar Association, Labour & Employment Law Section Newsletter November

2013

Want a job? Friend me first!

Labour & Employment Law Perspectives November

2013

In the age of social media, some employers request candidates’ Facebook passwords, or ask that candidates sign in to their Facebook profiles during a job interview. This article discusses that controversial practice, and describes the privacy and human rights concerns that it raises.

No Time Limit for Reinstatement: HRTO Reinstates Employee Years After Dismissal, Divisional Court Approves

Ontario Bar Association, Labour & Employment Law Section Newsletter October

2014

In a decision that has many employers reconsidering the manner in which they implement their duty to accommodate, the Divisional Court recently confirmed the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal’s (the “Tribunal”) decision in Fair v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, in which the Tribunal ordered the reinstatement of an employee 8 years after termination.

It is Time for a Change in the Law on Termination for Off-Duty Conduct

Ontario Bar Association Labour & Employment Law Section Newsletter May

2015

With the right protections in place to ensure that employers are not able to discipline or terminate employees for every minor off-duty act that is not to the employer’s liking, a change in the law on off-duty conduct would allow employers to engage in discipline or discharge in circumstances where there is a high probability that the employer’s reputation and business interests may be harmed by an employee’s off-duty conduct and would allow the law to adapt to new technology and its effect on the workplace.