Archive for June 25th, 2010

Ministerial Instructions Affecting the Canadian Experience Class Published

Henry Chang | June 25, 2010 in Canadian Immigration | Comments (0)

On June 26, 2010, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC”) published Ministerial Instructions (the “Instructions”), which affect the Canadian Experience Class (“CEC”). According to the Instructions, CEC applications received by CIC on or after June 26, 2010, must be accompanied by the results of the principal applicant’s English or French proficiency assessment. Only test results from a third party language testing agency designated by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism will be accepted.


Revised Ministerial Instructions for the Federal Skilled Worker Program Published

Henry Chang | in Canadian Immigration | Comments (0)

On June 26, 2010, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC”) published revised Ministerial Instructions (the “Instructions”), which affect the Federal Skilled Worker (“FSW”) Program.

Annual Cap Imposed on Certain FSW Cases

According to the Instructions, a maximum of 20,000 FSW applications filed without an offer of arranged employment will be considered for processing each year. Within the 20,000 cap, a maximum of 1,000 FSW applications per National Occupational Classification (“NOC”) code will be considered for processing each year.

In calculating the caps, the applications will be considered in order of the date that they are received. In addition, for the unique purpose of calculating the caps, the first year will begin in June 26, 2010, and end on June 30, 2011. Subsequent years will be calculated from July 1 to June 30, unless otherwise modified in a future Ministerial Instruction.

Language Proficiency Assessment Required

According to the Instructions, all FSW applications received by the Central Intake Office in Sydney, NS, on or after June 26, 2010 must be accompanied by the results of the principal applicant’s English or French language proficiency assessment. Only test results from a third party language testing agency designated by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism will be accepted.

Revised Restrictions on Who May Apply under the FSW Program

On or after June 26, 2010, only the following applications will be accepted under the FSW:

  1. Applications submitted with an Arranged Employment Offer (“AEO”) consistent with the requirements of Subsection 82(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (“IRPR”); or
  2. Applications from skilled workers with evidence of experience in the last 10 years under one or more of the following NOC codes:
    • 0631 Restaurant and Food Service Managers
    • 0811 Primary Production Managers (Except Agriculture)
    • 1122 Professional Occupations in Business Services to Management
    • 1233 Insurance Adjusters and Claims Examiners
    • 2121 Biologists and Related Scientists
    • 2151 Architects
    • 3111 Specialist Physicians
    • 3112 General Practitioners and Family Physicians
    • 3113 Dentists
    • 3131 Pharmacists
    • 3142 Physiotherapists
    • 3152 Registered Nurses
    • 3215 Medical Radiation Technologists
    • 3222 Dental Hygienists & Dental Therapists
    • 3233 Licensed Practical Nurses
    • 4151 Psychologists
    • 4152 Social Workers
    • 6241 Chefs
    • 6242 Cooks
    • 7215 Contractors and Supervisors, Carpentry Trades
    • 7216 Contractors and Supervisors, Mechanic Trades
    • 7241 Electricians (Except Industrial & Power System)
    • 7242 Industrial Electricians
    • 7251 Plumbers
    • 7265 Welders & Related Machine Operators
    • 7312 Heavy-Duty Equipment Mechanics
    • 7371 Crane Operators
    • 7372 Drillers & Blasters — Surface Mining, Quarrying & Construction
    • 8222 Supervisors, Oil and Gas Drilling and Service

No H&C Requests to Overcome Requirement of Ministerial Instructions

Requests made on the basis of Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds that accompany a FSW application not identified for processing under the Instructions will not be processed.


Guest Blog: Wrongful Dismissal, “Why is it so Wrongful?”

Henry Chang | in Employment Law | Comments (0)

The following guest blog is provided courtesy of John-Edward C. Hyde. John is a Certified Specialist and a partner in the Labour and Employment Group at Blaney McMurtry LLP, providing legal services to clients in both provincially and federally regulated industries. With a background in Human Resource Management, and possessing both Canadian and U.S. law degrees, John works closely with clients in developing practical and cost-effective legal solutions. He advises management on all aspects of employment and labour law matters, including representation before administrative tribunals, collective agreement negotiation, arbitrations and human rights. John also assists clients in providing strategic legal and human resources advice on labour and employment matters arising out of complex mergers, acquisitions and the sale of businesses.

Overview

Generally, employees stand at top of the list of resources most important to any given company. They can be either the company’s greatest asset, or it’s greatest liability, depending upon how they are treated. Juxtaposed against this, is the personification of the employee’s role in a company and in society. Many of us define ourselves through not only what we do, but what we do for a living. Our work shapes our sense of self, our personal lives and the lives of our families. As the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada noted in the case of, Reference re: Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313:

“Work is one of the most fundamental aspects in a person’s life, providing the individual with a means of financial support and, as importantly, a contributory role in society. A person’s employment is an essential component of his or her sense of identity, but the manner in which employment can be terminated is equally important.”

Indeed, this philosophy has woven itself into the tapestry of the law of wrongful dismissal in Canada and forms the benchmark upon which employer’s actions in the face of terminations are measured.

The term “wrongful dismissal”, is used in common parlance, throughout the press and is universally recognized across Canada. Very few people however, appreciate what the term actually means. Are all terminations of employment wrongful? Most certainly are not.

A termination of employment can be “wrongful”, usually in one or two ways. Regrettably, however they are not mutually exclusive. First, a termination of employment may be “wrongful”, if there is insufficient notice of the termination or pay in lieu. Secondly, it may be wrongful in the manner in which it is carried out.

In Canada an employee’s employment may be terminated either without notice for just cause, or upon the provision of reasonable notice (without just cause). The root of this assessment goes to back to 1960, and the Ontario High Court decision of Bardal v. Globe & Mail. In that case, Chief Justice McRuer of the Ontario High Court stated as follows:

“There can be no catalogue laid down as to what is reasonable notice in particular classes of cases. The reasonableness of the notice must be decided with reference to each particular case, having regard to the character of the employment, the length of service of the servant, the age of the servant and the availability of similar employment, having regard to the experience, training and qualifications of the servant.”

All Canadian wrongful dismissal cases have in one way or another, looked back to the precedent-setting case of Bardal v. Globe & Mail, for guidance as to the assessment of reasonable notice. As the court has noted, there is no formula, but rather a flexible approach is taken, considering amongst other things:

  1. Age;
  2. Position;
  3. Length of service; and
  4. Availability of similar employment.

The Myth of the One Month Per Year Rule (“of Thumb”)

Many employees (and employers) believe that a terminated employee should be entitled to at least one month’s notice or pay in lieu thereof, per previous year of employment. This is simply wrong. Numerous short-term employees receive far greater than one month per year of service and the courts frequently view such assessment as a limitation upon the flexibility of the Bardal approach. In the case of Minnott v. O’Shanter Development Company Ltd. (January 7, 1999, Ont. C.A.), the Ontario Court of Appeal noted as follows:

“The rule of thumb approach suffers from two deficiencies: it risks overemphasizing one of the Bardal factors, “length of service”, at the expense of the others; and it risks undermining the flexibility that is the virtue of the Bardal test. The rule of thumb approach seeks to achieve this flexibility by using the other factors to increase or decrease the period of reasonable notice from the starting point measured by length of service. But to be meaningful at all, this approach must still give unnecessary prominence to length of service. Thus, in my opinion, the rule of thumb approach is not warranted in principle, nor is it supported by authority.”

While the determination of reasonable notice is not an exact science, consideration may be had to the Bardal factors, taking into account similar cases which have helped to guide employment lawyers and subsequent decision makers (the courts), throughout the years. That being said, there are an excess of 100 different “things” a court might consider in determining the appropriate reasonable notice (or pay in lieu) for any employee. These may include anything from whether the employee was recently induced to leave secure employment elsewhere (this is often the case where head-hunters are involved), whether the employee had to relocate to accept new employment or, whether there where negligent misrepresentations made prior to employment, for example, statements as to security of tenure.

In the final analysis, the termination of an employee without just cause can be an expensive undertaking. There are many cases where an executive, employed for merely for two years, has received between a six and twelve month damage award for the failure to provide reasonable notice of termination. Similarly, many long-term employees receive 24 to 26 months notice (or pay in lieu thereof), in response to their terminations.

Damages for wrongful dismissal

Damages for wrongful dismissal can be generally described as the payment to the employee, of all the money and further compensation he or she may have been entitled had he or she been given reasonable notice of termination. This includes base salary, bonus entitlements (unless completely discretionary), commissions where applicable (based upon company and/or employee performance), all perquisites and benefits. Damages for wrongful dismissal can however, exceed these amounts, particularly, as a result of the manner of termination. Accordingly, as noted above, a dismissal may also be “wrongful”, depending upon the manner in which an employee is terminated. Over the years, the law in this area has been in a state of “flux”, however more recently in a case called, Keays v. Honda Canada Inc. [2008] 2 S.C.R. 362, 2008 SCC 39, the Supreme Court of Canada brought some clarity to employer responsibilities in terminations and the failure to meet those obligations.

In Keays v. Honda, Kevin Keays was terminated from his employment by Honda Canada Inc., and subsequently sued for wrongful dismissal. At trial, the judge found that Mr. Keays was entitled to 15 months notice of termination of his employment and then considered additional damages based upon the manner of dismissal (called “Wallace damages”), and increased the notice to 24 months. In this case, Keays was terminated for on-going absences arising out of a diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome. Additionally, the trial judge awarded punitive damages against Honda in the amount of the $500,000, plus costs on substantial indemnity scale, with a 25% premium. The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the finding of wrongful termination, yet ordered the cost premium to be reduced and the quantum of the punitive damages to be reduced from $500,000 to $100,000. Honda appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the Wallace damage award, the punitive damage award and the cost premium. The Supreme Court held as follows:

  1. There would not ordinarily be contemplation of psychological damage arising from the dismissal, since at the time of entering into an employment relationship, dismissal is a clear possibility. Thus normal distress and hurt feelings resulting from dismissal are not compensable.
  2. Damages resulting from the manner of dismissal will be available if they result from the circumstances where the employer engages in conduct during the course of dismissal, that is “unfair” or is in bad faith by being, for example untruthful, misleading or unduly insensitive.
  3. Employers have an obligation of good faith and fair dealing in the manner of dismissal. Employers must be “candidate, reasonable, honest and forthright with their employees, the failure to be so, can lead to foreseeable compensable damages”.
  4. In cases were damages are awarded there should be no extension of a notice period but rather through an award that reflects actual damages.
  5. With regard to punitive damages, the court stated, “damages for conduct in the manner of dismissal are compensatory and therefore, punitive damages are restricted to wrongful acts that are so malicious and outrageous that they are disserving of punishment on their own.”
  6. Punitive damages should, “receive the most careful consideration and the discretion to award them should be the most cautiously exercised”; being awarded only in exceptional cases.
  7. In assessing punitive damages, the courts must focus upon the defendant’s misconduct; not the plaintiff’s loss.”

Clearly, the cost of terminating an employee can be significant, and the results exceedingly detrimental (both financially and otherwise), particularly to smaller employers. Seeking legal advice prior to employee terminations (even if you believe “just cause” exists), is these days, an absolute imperative. Similarly, when hiring new employees, irrespective of level, a properly worded employment contract signed before the employee begins work, will save you significant grief and thousands of dollars.


Updated: Federal Investor Program Investment and Net Worth Requirements Increase

Henry Chang | in Canadian Immigration | Comments (0)

On June 26, 2010, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC”) published proposed regulations in the Canada Gazette, which will increase the personal net worth and investment amounts utilized by the Canadian Federal Immigrant Investor Program (the “Program”). Under the proposed regulations, the investment required under the Program will increase from $400,000.00CAD to $800,000.00CAD. In addition, the personal net worth required to qualify under the Program will increase from $800,000.00CAD to $1.6 Million CAD. Once the comment period has ended, the final regulations will be published and these higher investment and personal net worth amounts will become effective.

CIC has also published Ministerial Instructions in the Canada Gazette, which will create an “administrative pause” from June 26, 2010 until the date that the final regulations become effective. According to the Ministerial Instructions, no applications under the Program will be accepted unless they are post-marked or received by CIC before June 26, 2010. No subsequent applications will be accepted until the final regulations become effective. The objective of this “administrative pause” is to mitigate the growing surge in such applications under the current investment and personal net worth levels.

According to CIC, a net worth of $800,000CAD in 1999 was considered substantial enough to attract applicants with the financial wherewithal and expertise to make a significant positive economic contribution to Canada. Due to increasing global wealth, a net worth of $800,000 is now within easy reach of a modest property owner in a large city, who may not have other transferable resources as originally envisioned. In addition, CIC states that most other countries with similar programs now require an investment closer to $1 Million CAD. It therefore feels that the Program has become underpriced on the international market. CIC wishes to increase the investment amount to $800,000.00CAD for this reason.

CIC has indicated that the current net economic benefit to Canada from each investment made under the program is only $59,229.00CAD due to the requirement to repay the investment after five years. It estimates that, under the new investment level, the net economic benefit to Canada will increase to approximately $89,000.00CAD.


USCIS Updates H-1B Cap Count as of June 18, 2010

Henry Chang | in United States Immigration | Comments (0)

As of June 18, 2010, approximately 22,900 H-1B cap-subject petitions were receipted by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Additionally, USCIS has receipted 9,700 H-1B petitions for aliens with advanced degrees.

U.S. businesses use the H-1B program to employ foreign workers in specialty occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise in specialized fields, such as scientists, engineers, or computer programmers. The current annual cap on the H-1B category is 65,000. However, some petitions are exempt from the cap under the advanced degree exemption provided to the first 20,000 petitions filed for a beneficiary who has obtained a U.S. master’s degree or higher. Others are completely exempt from the numerical limits.

Please note that up to 6,800 H-1B numbers may be set aside from the cap of 65,000 during each fiscal year for the H-1B1 program under the terms of the legislation implementing the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreements. Unused numbers in this pool are made available for H-1B use for the next fiscal year.

For further information regarding the H-1B category, please review our H-1B article, which is available here.