[dijit]

Standard: I am not a lawyer disclaimer here.

The way it was described to me was that there's two major types of fine that the canadian government will levy against large companies that dump lots of workers at once.

1) More than 50 people within a 4week period.

Usually this means that the company must continue paying employment benefits on behalf of the company for a period of a year (iirc).

2) More than x% of your company being closed down.

You can get around #2 by claiming redundancies or claiming that you've moved the job to another canadian state (or, centralised a position), but once you give the studio its own legal entity and place an MD in charge (who is legally responsible for the studio) you can't do that any longer because the parent company continues to have a legal presence in the country, but operations are considered separate/independent.

Thus, if you close down the studio you've effectively terminated 100% of employment there which will garner super heavy fines.

Also also: Ubisoft doesn't want to piss of the canadian government either because nearly their entire profit exists in the tax break that montreal gives game companies.

.. but, like I said, this was told to me only a few times by a few high level directors and it was when we were talking about Vivendi trying to buy us, and they were also not laywers, so it could be a lot of chinese whispers.

But I've spoken to Yves, and while he's a really genuinely nice person... he will salt the earth before he sells the company.

[aceofspades19]

What other Canadian state can you move the job to?

[dijit]

We have offices in Quebec, Ontario and Mantinoba.

[aceofspades19]

None of which are states.

[dijit]

A federated state and a province are interchangeable terms. They have more specific names in some places, e.g. oblasts, emirates, etc. In much of the world the term state is usually used to refer to sovereign states unless directly talking about the US.

But you knew what I meant and are being pedantic.

[aceofspades19]

My point is you can't write a long post about Canadian law, use the wrong terminology and expect to be taken seriously. It's not like its commonly referred to as the Ontario state or state of Quebec. It would be like if I was talking about US law and said the territory of Maryland. It is technically a territory as in "an area of land under the jurisdiction of a ruler or state" but no one refers to it as the territory of Maryland either formally or informally and also makes my post less credible as it sounds like I don't know what I am talking about.

[dijit]

To be perfectly fair with you it's a mistake I commonly make as I'm not exactly interacting with Canadian provinces and it has very little to do with my day to day.

What I am repeating is a "fact" I've heard multiple times from multiple executives and I live half a world away, I've never been truly interested in what the various political systems are in Canada (or the US, or Mexico, or wherever) but I am acutely aware of different laws in those countries too.

For instance in some states in the US it is legal to turn right on red.

If I use the wrong terminology when referencing county or region then it has little bearing on the things I've actually heard.

I never claimed to be an expert on Canadian law, just that I had heard this anecdote and I'm trying to say as often as I can that I'm not an expert in law or Canada itself.

I understand your point, but it _is_ rather pedantic as it doesn't actually change anything about what I said to get it wrong.

I'm sure you know very little about how Switzerland is segmented but you are aware of the direct democracy antics of the country.

Ignorance of one thing does not preclude knowledge of another.