“I was terminated from my job and not happy with the offer of severance I received. A friend who used Daniel Lublin for her case recommended him. I had a previous experience with another employment lawyer and Daniel was much different. Instead of going for “garden variety” severance damages, Daniel initiated a claim for invasion of privacy and general damages. This brought my former employer to the negotiating table and fast. They must have feared dealing with Daniel since they accepted our offer in order to settle the case! Daniel achieved 100% of what I hoped to obtain and relatively fast. Not least, his legal fees were also consistent with my expectations and what we had agreed to. In the end, I made the right decision to challenge my inadequate offer of severance and to retain Daniel Lublin. If you need a lawyer to fight Goliath, call Daniel. ”
– Ingrid Fazio (2014)
As an executive and having familiarity with a variety of lawyers and firms in the non-employment law spaces, I definitely knew what I did not want. After a bit of shopping, I met with Daniel from Whitten & Lublin and choose him. I am glad I did. My former employer started me off with a low ball offer for a very senior position. Daniel caught this issue right away, and it was this issue that immediately brought our range up 6x over where they started and allowed us to negotiate on our terms, not theirs. Then Daniel developed a strategy to threaten a novel claim for extra damages that enabled us to get the “last 20%” of what we wanted. Most lawyers, in my experience, would apply the 80 / 20 rule and stopped at achieving 80% of the result, because most of the work left is in pushing for that last 20%. Daniel took it the extra mile. His innovative approach applied recent legal precedent on a non-employment law related issue to get us over the goal line. My former employment caved. I would HIGHLY recommend.
Mark Allen Reynolds – 2013
Daniel A. Lublin, Partner
See Daniel’s Report on Business Column in the Globe & Mail
See Daniel’s “Is your employment lawyer the real deal?” article in the Globe & Mail
Daniel Lublin is a well-known and leading workplace lawyer, media commentator, author and one of the most recommended employment lawyers in Ontario.
The Globe & Mail and Daniel Lublin’s video on wrongful dismissal.
Mr. Lublin envisions workplace law as a marriage between employer and employee that often leads to breakdown when one takes advantage of the other. Viewing workplace law through this lens enables Mr. Lublin to quickly identify his client’s objectives – and vigorously pursue them.
Mr. Lublin represents both employees and employers in all workplace-related legal disputes and human rights matters – with an emphasis on litigation.
For the past 8 consecutive years, Mr. Lublin has been named as one of “Canada’s Top Employment Lawyers” in Carswell’s annual survey. In 2011, he was awarded the “Precedent Setter Award” recognizing him as one of the best of the new generation of lawyers in Ontario. He frequently appears on television and radio as a commentator for workplace legal issues.
Mr. Lublin has published over 500 national newspaper articles since 2005. He now serves as the Globe & Mail’s workplace law columnist both in print and online, where his weekly column was published in print in Canada’s ten largest markets. Mr. Lublin is also the author of Canada’s first legal text on Independent Contractors, published by Carswell in 2013.
Mr. Lublin is a courtroom lawyer. He has successfully been lead counsel on a number of reported court decisions at all levels of the Courts of Ontario including:
Tetra Consulting versus Continental Bank of Canada (2015) ONSC 4610, where Mr. Lublin successfully obtained a large wrongful dismissal judgment on behalf of a senior bank executive; and see Tetra Consulting v Continental Bank et al., 2015 ONSC 6546 where the defendant in this case was ordered to pay extraordinary legal costs to Mr. Lublin’s client due to its defence strategy.
Buaron v AcuityAds Inc., 2015 ONSC 5774 where Mr. Lublin succeeded in convincing a court to strike down an employment contract that attempted to limit his client to only minimum severance and obtained damages for wrongful dismissal due to the termination.
Markoulakis v SNC-Lavalin Inc., 2015 ONSC 1081, secured one of highest ever wrongful dismissal judgments in Canadian history, against SNC Lavalin, obtaining a 27 month severance award following the termination of a senior civil engineer after 41 years’ service.
K.P. v Oracle Canada ULC, successful wrongful dismissal lawsuit on behalf of senior sales executive, against Oracle Canada.
Ledford v. Friendly Times, 2014 HRTO 70, successful defence of human rights lawsuit alleging age discrimination.
Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 – Prevailed in a two week human rights trial concerning discrimination on the basis of race and reprisal, resulting in a significant award of damages for a terminated employee.
Hussain v. Suzuki Canada Ltd., 2011 CarswellOnt 12251 (ON S.C.) – one of the highest ever severance awards in Canada (a 26 month severance package) given to Suzuki Canada’s longest serving employee.
Cardenas v. Kohler Canada Co., 2009 CanLII 17976 (ON S.C.) – one of the largest group wrongful dismissal judgements in Canadian history, where Mr. Lublin successfully obtained nearly $1 million in damages for five terminated employees.
Adjemian v. Brook Crompton North America, 2008 CanLII 27469 (ON S.C.), a precedent setting case at the Ontario Court of Appeal confirming that wrongful dismissal cases can and should be heard in an expedited fashion. This case has been relied upon since that time to assist employees in obtaining speedy court judgements on dismissal matters.
Camaganacan v. St. Joseph’s Printing Ltd., 2010 ONSC 5184 (ON S.C), wherein Mr. Lublin secured a 16 month severance package for a client who had been offered only 6 months by his employer.
Nasager v. Northern Reflections Ltd., 2011 ONSC 5872, which is an appeal court case, where Mr. Lublin successfully upheld a judge’s decision that his client should be awarded a 6 month severance package where the employer gave him only 5 weeks.
Corporate Investigative Services v. Steele et al. 2012 ONSC 3286 (ON S.C.) – Successful defence of a summary judgement motion in a large corporate action involving two competing security companies.
Harvey v. Shoeless Joe’s, 2011 ONSC 3242 (ON S.C.) – Successful defence of a wrongful dismissal claim from a former executive.
Napolitano v. Friendly Times Child Care Centre, 2012 HRTO 603 – One of the few cases dismissing a human rights application from an ex-employee on a summary hearing.
Hayes v. Peer 1 Network Inc., 2007 CanLII 65614 (ON S.C.D.C.) – wherein Mr. Lublin successfully overturned a lower court’s decision to move his client’s case to British Columbia, instead of Ontario where the client resided.
Mr. Lublin is regularly consulted by other practitioners for assistance in employment-related matters and has been retained by employers in the United States and the United Kingdom to assist in managing the human resources implications of conducting business in Canada. Mr. Lublin is also frequently consulted by employees and executives across Canada to provide assistance with their workplace-related disputes and in the negotiation of their employment contracts and severance agreements.
Some of Mr. Lublin’s recent news quotes and journal publications are listed below:
- The Lawyers Weekly, “Workplace game change”, March 7, 2014
- The Lawyers Weekly, “Challenging the “right” to telecommute”, May 17, 2013
- Toronto Star, “RBC apologizes to outsourced workers”, April 11, 2013
- Toronto Star, “Ottawa approved foreign workers to replace RBC Employees”, April 8, 2013
- CTV National News “Class action lawsuits over unpaid overtime”, March 22, 2013
- CTV’s Canada AM “Ask a Lawyer”, February 27, 2013
- Canadian HR Reporter, “Relationship Problems at Work”, February 26, 2013
- Law Times “Who owns employees social media accounts”, Nov 2012
- Readers Digest “How Maternity Leave is failing Canadian Woman”, August 2012
- The Toronto Star “Would you reveal your Facebook password for a job”, March 21, 2012
- The Lawyers Weekly “Offering only the minimum a ‘costly gamble’, March 2, 2012
- Canadian Business Magazine, “The dark side of maternity leave”, September 14, 2011
- Law Times, “Lawyer’s letters can be perilous“, September 5, 2011
- Toronto Star, “High profile resignations work for some”, July 15, 2011
- The Lawyers Weekly “Terminating long-term employees”, July 8, 2011
- The Toronto Star, “Social media leaves trail for bosses”, July 6, 2011
- The Globe and Mail, “When push comes to shove: mandatory retirement”, May 13, 2011
- Canadian HR Reporter, “Employee wins back unilateral pay cuts”, January 17, 2011
- The Toronto Star, “What you do outside of work can get you fired”, May 10, 2011
- Canadian Employment Law Today, “When a manager isn’t a ‘manager’, April 6, 2011
- The Globe and Mail, “Computer ruling seen as landmark workplace decision”, March 26, 2011
- The Globe and Mail, “Employment contracts: what you need to know”, January 8, 2011
- National Post – Young Entrepreneur Spotlight, December 2010
- University of New Brunswick Law Journal, Issue 59 “Wrongful Dismissal: bad faith damages in Canadian employment law”, 2009
- Canadian Compensation and Benefits Reporter, “Employer pays 10K in equity case”, October 2010
- Canadian Employment Law Today, “Court slashes damages for Bell manager’s assault”, June 30, 2010
- Canadian Corporate Counsel Magazine “A new bar for safety on the job” summer, 2010
- Canadian Employment Law today, “Get out the swear jar at work”, June 16, 2010
- Law Times, “Assessing the validity of employee bonuses”, June, 2010
- Canadian Employment Law today “Court slashes damages for manager’s assault” June, 2010
- Canadian Employment Law Today, “Paranoid employer goes too far” January 13, 2010
- Canadian Employment Law Today, “Employer not to blame for employee’s mental breakdown” April 9, 2008
- Canadian Employment Law Today, “Silence may not always be golden” June 18, 2008
- Globe and Mail, Job Security on Leave, May 6, 2009
- CTV.ca, “NDP wants more EI for new moms” April 28, 2009
- National Post “It’s not just a fear: you’ve been laid off” February 3, 2009
- Toronto Star “Family Day confusion still reigns” February 14, 2009
- The Lawyers Weekly “Names in the News” December 19, 2008
- The Lawyers Weekly “Resolving termination disputes by summary judgment” May 22, 2009
- The Canadian Employer “ask an expert”, February 2008
- Canadian Employment Law Today, Issue 534 “No room for funny business”
- Canadian Employment Law Today, Issue 541 “Job posting unreasonable step” Canadian Employment Law Today, Issue 525 “Squeaky wheel gets released”
- Toronto Star “Worries follow rise of Facebook” May 4, 2007
Daniel can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Sample of articles written by Daniel Lublin, as the Globe and Mail’s Workplace Legal Expert
Things to look out for when finding and hiring the right employment lawyer for yourself.
Some common misconceptions about severance packages and the dismissal by your employer.
Non-compete clauses are often considered excessive and are rarely upheld, but non-solicitation agreements are a different story.
You may have a claim for constructive dismissal if your employer changes your job in any significant way, including changed hours of work, reduction in compensation, changed responsibilities, and changed work location.
You cannot be fired because you are sick, but employees who do not work are not entitled to pay unless it is guaranteed in their employment contract.
The biggest mistake you can make when changing jobs is to agree to an unfavourable employment contract. Be on the lookout for probation, termination, contractual changes, non-solicitation, and non-compete clauses.