Get the latest on layoffs, severance strategy, “Team Canada” policy shifts, and upcoming changes to EI and sick leave. We recently spoke with employment lawyer Christopher Munroe, partner at Roper Greyell LLP, who offered timely insights on the legal trends employers need to watch in 2024 and beyond.
Pressed for time? Skip ahead:
S1: Layoffs, Lawsuits, and a Game of Chicken
S2: Federal Employment Law and the “Team Canada” Push for Unity
S3: Bill 11 and the Future of Sick Notes in BC
S4: EI Changes and New WorkSafeBC Obligations
S1: Layoffs, Lawsuits, and a Game of Chicken
GB: When I last spoke with your colleague Danny Bernstein, we discussed how employers can protect themselves when facing layoffs—especially around proper notice and the limits of temporary layoffs. At the time, there was a lot of buzz about tariffs and a looming downturn. Has that played out?
CM: Not quite the way some feared. It’s still early days, and while certain industries have felt the impact, the economy hasn’t taken the hit many were bracing for. I’ve seen a few layoffs and some hiring freezes, but not the flood of terminations people were predicting. That said, it’s worth reminding employers that laying someone off—even for business reasons—is still considered a termination without cause, unless it qualifies as a valid temporary layoff.1
So if you’re permanently removing someone from the workforce, you’re on the hook for notice or severance. That might be set out in a contract or, if there’s no enforceable clause, determined under the common law. And in a unionized setting, the collective agreement applies.
GB: And when that happens, is it usually you they call?
CM: Hopefully they call before—but often it’s after they receive a demand letter from the employee’s lawyer. That’s when we get involved. The claim is usually for wrongful dismissal, which is really just a breach of contract. The employee is saying they weren’t given the termination pay or notice they were entitled to.
If the contract doesn’t limit that entitlement, we fall back on common law reasonable notice. That’s based on a few factors: length of service, the character of the position, the employee’s age, and the availability of comparable jobs. Even someone who’s worked just a day in a professional role could be owed two to three months. For long-serving, senior employees, especially older ones, it could be up to 24 months in BC—and even more in Ontario.
GB: That can add up fast.
CM: Especially for high earners, yes. That’s why solid contractual language is so critical. But even with that in place, once a claim arises, there’s often a strategic dance—a bit of a game of chicken.
GB: What do you mean?
CM: The employee has an obligation to mitigate their damages by finding new work. If they land a new job quickly, the severance they’re entitled to could shrink. But the employer might want to settle early—to cap the risk, avoid legal fees, and move on. If the employer pays out quickly and the employee then finds a new job, it can be a windfall for the employee. But from the employer’s point of view, it’s worth it to shut the file and avoid litigation.
GB: Are there any other trends you’re seeing these days—maybe as a result of the tariffs or the broader economy?
CM: Actually, yes. One unusual trend I’ve seen recently is around rescinding employment contracts before the start date. I’ve had more calls about this in the past few months than in the rest of my career combined.
It happens when an offer has been made and accepted, but before the employee’s start date, something changes—maybe there’s a hiring freeze, or a reference check raises red flags—and the employer wants to back out.
What surprises a lot of employers is that unless the contract specifically allows for pre-start termination, rescinding the offer can be treated as a termination at law. And here’s the kicker: many termination clauses only kick in once the employee starts. So ironically, the employer might be on the hook for more severance by pulling the offer early than if they had let the person show up for a single day and then terminated them.
GB: That’s wild.
CM: It really is. Some employers are now trying to draft around this by including language that allows for termination before the start date without liability. It’s legally sound—but it sends a bit of a cold message during onboarding, so not everyone’s comfortable with it.
If the issue is something like a reference check, then a condition precedent in the contract—like “offer subject to satisfactory references”—can help. If the condition isn’t met, there’s technically no contract, and the employer may avoid liability altogether. But absent that kind of clause, the risk is real.
S2: Federal Employment Law and the “Team Canada” Push for Unity
GB: This is our first legal update since the most recent federal election. I don’t recall labour or employment law being front and center during the campaign—but from your perspective, was there anything worth watching?
CM: Not especially—and that’s mostly because the federal government has limited constitutional authority over employment law for the majority of Canadian workers. Employment standards are largely a provincial matter. The federal government only has jurisdiction over specific “federal works or undertakings” such as airlines, interprovincial trucking, banks, telecommunications, the federal civil service, and a few others.
Together, those sectors make up a relatively small slice of the national workforce. So even if Ottawa had major legislative ambitions in this area, any changes wouldn’t apply to most people.
GB: So they can’t legislate broadly—but can they still influence the conversation?
CM: Yes, and that’s where it gets interesting. They can’t enforce national standards, but they can set examples. Take the recent federal ban on replacement workers during strikes—long a staple of BC’s labour code. That federal legislation comes into effect in June. It doesn’t change anything provincially, but it signals direction and could inspire similar moves at the provincial level.
More broadly, there’s also this push you’ve probably heard about—the “Team Canada” approach.
GB: That term’s been tossed around a lot. What does it actually mean when it comes to employment law?
CM: The idea is to promote national cooperation, especially in a time of economic uncertainty. Prime Minister Carney has been bringing premiers together to discuss ways to make Canada more unified and business-friendly. One area that could benefit from a more consistent approach is employment law—specifically, reducing the patchwork of provincial rules.
Right now, if you’re a company hiring people in Alberta, BC, and Ontario, you’re dealing with three separate employment standards systems—different rules for overtime, vacation, termination, payroll, and even how to write the employment contract. It’s confusing and inefficient, especially with more companies hiring across provinces in the remote work era.
GB: Would it be this messy if I were starting a company in, say, Finland?
CM: I don’t know the laws in Finland, but maybe not. The U.S. has similar jurisdictional differences, but with a much larger population, it’s easier to operate within a few large states. In Canada, with our smaller population, the complexity feels harder to justify, especially if we are trying to encourage foreign investment. That’s part of why a coordinated approach—like Team Canada—is so appealing.
GB: So this could make Canada more attractive for employers?
CM: That’s the hope. If we could standardize some of the basics—vacation, overtime thresholds, notice periods—it would go a long way toward reducing the complexity of doing business in Canada. Right now, companies have to juggle multiple contracts and payroll systems just to scale nationally. Even small steps toward harmonization could boost investment and simplify hiring across the country.
S3: Bill 11 and the Future of Sick Notes in BC
GB: I read that BC had changed its Employment Standards Act to eliminate sick notes. Is that legit?
CM: Sort of—but not quite yet. There has been a recent legislative change under Bill 11, but it doesn’t immediately affect what employers need to do. What the legislation actually does is lay the groundwork for future regulations. Those regulations—expected later this year—will spell out the specific situations in which employers can’t request sick notes for short-term absences.
So yes, the government’s intent is to limit the use of sick notes, but as of today, nothing has changed in practice. There will be a public consultation process over the summer to help shape the regulations. Until then, employers should stay the course.
GB: What’s the goal here?
CM: The main driver seems to be easing the burden on the healthcare system. Requiring someone to sit in a walk-in clinic just to get a one-line note saying they’re too sick to work—it’s a waste of everyone’s time. And to be honest, those notes are usually useless from an employer’s standpoint, because they lack detail.
That said, I hope the regulations still allow for reasonable exceptions. In Ontario, for example, employers can’t require a sick note as a precondition to access their minimum statutory sick days, but they can request medical documentation when accommodating a disability or managing return-to-work plans. Those are legally necessary—and I’d expect similar allowances in BC.
GB: But what if someone’s “sick” every Monday?
CM: Right—and that’s the other side of this. If there’s a suspicious pattern—say, someone’s ill every Friday—then yes, employers need tools to investigate misuse. And that’s why I think it’s important to preserve the right to request documentation in specific scenarios.
To be clear, I don’t think employers should be asking for a note every time someone calls in sick for a day. That’s overkill. But we need balance—something that deters abuse while still respecting legitimate illness and protecting the healthcare system from unnecessary traffic. The details will matter here.
GB: So, for now, business as usual—but changes are on the horizon?
CM: Exactly. And if the government opens a public consultation process, I’d strongly encourage employers to participate. The outcome will depend on how this regulation is written—and it’s worth having a voice in that.
S4: EI Changes and New WorkSafeBC Obligations
GB: Before we wrap up—anything else new or noteworthy you think employers should have on their radar?
CM: One change that’s flown a bit under the radar is a temporary revision to Employment Insurance (EI). In response to economic uncertainty and the lingering impact of tariff threats, the federal government has adjusted how severance payments interact with EI benefits.
Normally, if an employee is let go and receives severance, that payment is “allocated” to a period of time after their termination—delaying or reducing their EI eligibility. But for claims made between March 30, 2024, and October 11, 2025, that rule has been paused. Employees can now receive severance and EI at the same time, without having to repay the benefits. There’s also currently no one-week waiting period, making EI more accessible.
It’s a short-term measure (for now), but one that could be extended depending on how things evolve.
For BC employers, another big development is under the Workers Compensation Act. There are now enforceable duties to maintain employment of an injured employee and cooperate with an employee and with WorkSafeBC once a claim is accepted. The duty to cooperate includes providing information and helping facilitate a return to work—especially when lasting injuries require accommodation.
And here’s a common pitfall: just because WorkSafeBC says an employee likely won’t return, that doesn’t necessarily fulfill an employer’s duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code. Employers should get legal advice before acting on assumptions in these cases.
Lastly, there’s been a court ruling that could open the door to more psychological injury claims. The longstanding exclusion for claims stemming from “management decisions” was found to be overly broad and unconstitutional. The full implications remain to be seen—but it’s definitely something employers and their counsel are watching closely.
