Open the newspaper on any given day, and it would not be surprising to see a new story on a sexual harassment issue in the workplace (hint: think Ghomeshi). Society is intolerant of this conduct. It appears the Ontario Government has listened.
There is a widespread, but potentially risky, practice within the dental industry of characterizing hygienists as “independent contractors”, as opposed to employees. Despite the prevalence of this practice, there remains much confusion surrounding the distinction between the two categories of worker. Improperly labeling, and paying, a hygienist as an independent contractor, as opposed to an employee, can have serious legal consequences from both a tax and employment law perspective.
It was noted in Part 1 of this series that Courts prefer the use of non-solicitation clauses to the use of non-competition clauses. As stated, Courts will engage in the following three-part analysis when tasked with determining the enforceability of non-competition clauses in associate agreements
In our last post, we discussed the general prohibition against the enforceability of non-competition clauses in agreements between associates and principals.
We are routinely consulted by newly graduated dentists concerning their first associate agreement. Their number-one concern is invariably the non-competition clause contained in the agreement. A non-competition covenant attempts to restrict the associate from working within a defined zone surrounding the Principal’s business, for a defined period of time, after the termination of the relationship with the principal.
The RCDS has recently announced that it will be amending its By-Laws, effective October 1, 2015, to expand the information available to the public on the RCDS’s Public Register.