Kirchmair v. EXP Global Inc. with Matthew Dewar and Barry Fisher

Williamson v Brandt Tractor Inc. with Neena Gupta and Ellen Low

“Employment income earned during the notice period is generally to be treated as mitigation of loss”. Join employment law leaders Nina Gupta, Ellen Lowe and Chris Robertson as they delve into the pivotal Williamson v. Brandt Tractor case, reshaping our understanding of mitigation and wrongful termination payments. Discover why the evidentiary threshold for just cause is challenging, how recent case law impacts mitigation earnings, and the strategic importance of managing notice periods. This episode offers essential insights for employment lawyers, HR professionals, and business owners navigating the evolving legal landscape. Don't miss this insightful breakdown.

Kirchmair v. EXP Global Inc. with Matthew Dewar and Barry Fisher

Barry Fisher and Matthew Dewar join Chris Robertson and Sarah Goodenough to discuss Kirchmair v EXP Global Inc. This episode dives into a high stakes, alleged constructive dismissal and offers a nuanced analysis on issues surrounding contractual termination provisions, various bonus structures, damages tied to incentive compensation, and when employer conduct crosses the threshold into moral and punitive liability. Is there a case you would like to hear us talk about? Do you have a story of workplace drama you would like to share with our panel? Reach out to us at watercoolerjustice@gmail.com [watercoolerjustice@gmail.com].

The Off-Cycle Link Between the Canadian Job Market and Court Decisions

Chris and Sarah sit down with special guest, Rich Dias to explore the fascinating intersection of macroeconomics with wrongful dismissal disputes. From the famous Bardal factors and reasonable notice periods, to unemployment rates and economic cycles - this episode truly has it all. Whether you're an employment lawyer, an economics nerd, or simply a curious mind drawn to the unexpected overlap between two seemingly distinct worlds - this one's for you! Rich is a global macro strategist with over 15 years of experience working for institutions in both Canada and the U.K. He is also a co-host on the Loonie Hour - a podcast dedicated to breaking down Canadian and global economics. Currently he is based in Montreal with IceCap Asset Management as a Global Strategist.

Wigdor v. Facebook and Liggett v. Veeva with Ellen Low and Sean Bawden

"Two compensation schemes that look almost identical on paper can lead to wildly different outcomes.” Chris Robertson and Sarah Goodenough are joined by employment lawyers Ellen Low and Sean Bawden to unpack the murky and increasingly high-stakes world of restricted stock units (RSUs). In this episode, the panel compares Wigdor v. Facebook Canada and Liggett v. Veeva Software System, two recent Ontario cases involving equity compensation, termination, and notice, with sharply divergent results. The conversation explores why RSUs continue to sit in a legal grey zone, how courts are navigating the tension between the Employment Standards Act and common law reasonable notice, and why precise drafting (or the lack of it) can mean the difference between forfeiting millions or recovering vested compensation. The panel also debates whether RSUs should be treated as wages or benefits, the role of good faith and discretion in forfeiture decisions, and what these cases signal for employers and employees alike as equity-based compensation becomes more common. Is there a case you'd like to hear us talk about? Do you have a story you'd like to share with our panel? Reach out to us at: watercoolerjustice@gmail.com  ---------------------------------------- Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy [https://acast.com/privacy] for more information.

Chan v. NYX Capital Corp with Ellen Low and Matthew Dewar

Ellen Low and Matthew Dewar join Chris Robertson and Sarah Goodenough to discuss Chan v. NYX Capital Corp. This case explores the limits of probationary employment and what happens when employers attempt to contract out of the Employment Standards Act. The panel dives into the meaning and implications of the phrase “at any time for any reason” in termination clauses, and why small drafting choices can make or break enforceability. With a mix of humour and technical insight, they reveal how two simple words, “legally permissible”, might be the key to getting it right. Is there a case you'd like to hear us talk about? Do you have a story you'd like to share with our panel? Reach out to us at: watercoolerjustice@gmail.com  ---------------------------------------- Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy [https://acast.com/privacy] for more information.