Offline
The veteran podcaster indicates MK Bowyer says she's been fired from 102.1 The Edge. She'd been there for the past four years.
More here.
Offline
MK Bowyer has been replaced on CFNY by Jeremy Bower - a veteran jock who broadcasts out of B.C. He'll be doing the 10 AM- 3PM shift and not just on 102.1. His show also airs afternoons on originating station CFOX in Vancouver, evenings over The Edge in Calgary, and on weekends via CFPL-FM in London.
There's nothing unusual about importing a voice from another city, but it's lamentable that another local host has been lost in this shuffle.
Offline
In my books, being laid off and being fired are not the same thing….. Are we sure that she was fired?
Offline
torontostan wrote:
In my books, being laid off and being fired are not the same thing….. Are we sure that she was fired?
The terminology makes little difference to the affected party. Officially they are layoffs but a layoff implies that there will be a return to work. MK will not be called back to 102.1, so she has effectively been fired.
Offline
I'm going with Toronto Mike's interpretation of what happened and he's usually pretty accurate.
All I can say is having been in broadcasting my whole life, it's happened to me a few times - and getting laid off sure felt an awful lot like being fired!
Offline
The terminology I used was "fired".
Also, quick Lawsonian #factcheck: The replacement is not "Jeremy Bower" but Jeremy Baker.
Last edited by torontomike (March 5, 2026 10:19 am)
Offline
Thanks for the correction. Another sign I shouldn't be posting at 6 AM before I'm fully awake!
Offline
These days "laid off" means you were let go without cause and receive severance. "Fired" implies you did something wrong and were terminated with cause..... therefore no severance. She may have used the wrong word herself
Offline

Binson Echorec wrote:
torontostan wrote:
In my books, being laid off and being fired are not the same thing….. Are we sure that she was fired?
The terminology makes little difference to the affected party. Officially they are layoffs but a layoff implies that there will be a return to work. MK will not be called back to 102.1, so she has effectively been fired.
I have yet to hear of any on-air personality that was "laid off" and then later called back to work. Most media companies like to use the term because it sounds more gentle and less cruel than "fired".
PJ
Offline
Hmmm. So other then the morning show, a legendary Canadian radio station in the biggest market is now entirely voice-tracked. Although even the morning show is syndicated elsewhere too-so does that really count?
I think a new doc. is in order to show the mighty downfall.
Last edited by km93 (March 5, 2026 11:16 am)
Offline
km93 wrote:
Hmmm. So other then the morning show, a legendary Canadian radio station in the biggest market is now entirely voice-tracked. Although even the morning show is syndicated elsewhere too-so does that really count?
I think a new doc. is in order to show the mighty downfall.
It's hardly the spirit of radio...more like the modern day reality of it.
Offline
km93 wrote:
Hmmm. So other then the morning show, a legendary Canadian radio station in the biggest market is now entirely voice-tracked. Although even the morning show is syndicated elsewhere too-so does that really count?
I think a new doc. is in order to show the mighty downfall.
PM drive is live from Toronto.
Offline
torontostan wrote:
These days "laid off" means you were let go without cause and receive severance. "Fired" implies you did something wrong and were terminated with cause..... therefore no severance. She may have used the wrong word herself
Torontostan is indeed correct:
Over the years, I've heard many people say they've been fired when their job loss had absolutely nothing to do with performance. Many years ago, when I lost my own job, it was because the newspaper chain let go four reporters to cut costs. We were a union shop, so layoffs were in order of least seniority (a clause in the union-management contract I agree with because it preserves employment for people whose lives are more embedded in their jobs). I had just joined the paper, so I was second to go. I would have likely been second to recall but I moved quickly. I never considered myself fired, and the delineation of the two indeed holds. Using the correct definition when laid off is not only a matter of self-respect (and respect for others) but also has significant legal implications.
Last edited by Saul (March 5, 2026 11:25 am)
Offline
It can still be grey. The one time I was "fired" it was technically "laid-off" as it was without official cause and I got a nice severance - but I can guarantee that the motivation was firing.
Offline
I might be wrong but I'm under the impression that being deemed a "layoff" helps the affected on the EI front.
Last edited by Binson Echorec (March 5, 2026 11:32 am)
Offline
I guess it all depends on the company.
The last time I was "laid off," I asked HR if that meant there was any chance I would be hired back at some later time. The woman, who seemed to be enjoying her job a bit too much for my liking, told me absolutely not. So perhaps the inappropriate use of the term is the problem by people who should know better.
Offline
Binson Echorec wrote:
I might be wrong but I'm also under the impression that being deemed a "layoff" helps the affected on the EI front.
Luckily I didn't need to find out at the time, but yes.
Offline
RadioAaron wrote:
It can still be grey. The one time I was "fired" it was technically "laid-off" as it was without official cause and I got a nice severance - but I can guarantee that the motivation was firing.
Fair enough. There's often grey area in situations. But with some people I've known it's seemed fairly clear cut. If and when it seemed appropriate for me to say anything to them, I simply explained the difference and suggested they be careful how they phrased their situation in, say, job interviews or in conversations with colleagues. And simply how they respected themselves. Generally, being laid off should not affect one's self-esteem. Some people are really pro at their jobs and at what they do, but for various reasons not directly connected to their performance or character lack self-esteem. And sometimes someone just slightly higher up somewhat nefariously simply has it in for them.
Offline
I might even think that laying off an employee requires far less paperwork and documentation on the part of HR than a firing would.
I never issued a layoff but I did have to fire someone. Having the documentation is like 90% of the battle.
Last edited by Binson Echorec (March 5, 2026 1:41 pm)
Offline
There are cases of people in broadcasting being laid off... and later rehired because they were not fired for cause, that is doing something wrong like stealing or drug abuse.
Sometimes a laid off broadcaster must accept rehire, but at a lower pay rate.
That is usually at a non union shop.
Union contracts usually provide that if a laid off person is rehired it must be with the same pay.
Offline
Ok, so when you severe employment with someone there are several different codes you can use on an ROE (record of employment). Dismissal would be the most severe and indicates the person was let go with cause - typically no severance would be required under ESA (Ontario) but radio being federally regulated there maybe different rules. Even if there is cause some organizations may pay a couple weeks to try to prevent the person going to court, tribunal etc. Even if there is cause, if someone is successful in court, Common Law might dictate some sort of termination pay is owed.
If a person is laid off the ROE may indicate an anticipated return date or no return date. If the layoff becomes permanent then at a minimum the person would be owed pay in accordance with ESA (Ontario) or Federal statue in the case of Radio and TV. Common Law may dictate more severance is owed and some organizations may sweeten the pot to try to convince the former employee not to go the legal route. ie a negotiated settlement.