• First Reference
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Blog Signup 📨

First Reference Talks

Discussions on Human Resources, Employment Law, Payroll and Internal Controls

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources
  • Buy Policies
You are here: Home / Payroll / Employee sophistication and enforceability of termination provisions

By SpringLaw | 2 Minutes Read December 15, 2021

Employee sophistication and enforceability of termination provisions

employee sophistication

Recent judgments have muddied the waters on the importance of considering the relative sophistication of employees in determining the enforceability of termination provisions in employment contracts. Employee sophistication had previously been considered in interpreting whether termination provisions were valid, on the premise that inherent in the employer-employee relationship is an imbalance of power. This consideration may not be as significant in light of recent developments in case law.

History

Three months ago, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released its decision for Rahman v Cannon Design Architecture Inc. (Rahman), in which it upheld the termination provisions in an employment contract, despite those provisions violating the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA). In rendering its decision, the Court pointed to the employee’s reasonable sophistication and her negotiation of the terms of her employment agreement, through her legal counsel, which led to “material improvements” to the terms of her entitlements on termination, concluding that there was clear mutual intent to comply with the minimum standards of the ESA.

Recent decisions

Two more recent decisions – Livshin v The Clinic Network Canada Inc. (Livshin) and Campbell-Givons v Humber River Hospital (Campbell-Givons) – which call Rahman into question, have since been released. 

In finding that the termination provisions in the employment contract in Livshin, which were negotiated in the context of a commercial transaction, were void, Justice Black stated that, “While Livshin may be more sophisticated than many employees, and notwithstanding that he was represented by counsel, I can see no reason why the clause at issue had to be drafted in a way that on its face contravenes the ESA. Further, in my view the goal that employers be encouraged to draft clauses that comply with the ESA trumps the suggestion that Livshin may have been better able than many or most employees to recognize the potential peril” (para 57). 

Likewise, in Campbell-Givons, Justice Black reinforced that a termination provision cannot comply with the ESA for some employees and violate the ESA for others and emphasized that courts should not be requested to rewrite such provisions to ensure compliance with ESA standards. 

Takeaways for employers

Given the contradictory rulings in Rahman and the later two cases mentioned above (and until these cases are appealed), employers should take care in drafting termination provisions in employment agreements to ensure that they are compliant with the ESA. Courts may be reluctant in engaging in analyses about the level of sophistication of an employee and an employee’s opportunity to obtain legal advice in determining the enforceability of termination provisions.

  • About
  • Latest Posts
Follow me
SpringLaw
Employment and Labour Law Firm at SpringLaw
SpringLaw is a virtual Canadian boutique law firm, practicing exclusively in the areas of employment, labour and human rights law. We work with a wide range of employers - from global companies with operations in Canada to local owner-operators and start-ups - advising on the wide range of legal issues that arise out of the workplace, particularly workplaces in the tech and creative space. We also provide legal and strategic advice to employees throughout their employment journey. Blog posts are written by Lisa Stam, Hilary Page, Emily Siu, Danielle Murray, Lindsay Koruna, Jessyca Greenwood, Marnie Baizley, Matt Chapman, Evaleen Hellinga and Tiffany Thomas.
Follow me
Latest posts by SpringLaw (see all)
  • Ontario requirement for naloxone in the workplace - January 11, 2023
  • New year, new employment agreements? - December 14, 2022
  • Termination clauses going into 2023 – What employers need to know - November 9, 2022

Article by SpringLaw / Employment Standards, Payroll / employee sophistication, employment contract, employment law, employment standards act, termination, Termination provisions

Share with a friend or colleague

Get the Latest Posts in your Inbox for Free!

Electronic monitoring

About SpringLaw

SpringLaw is a virtual Canadian boutique law firm, practicing exclusively in the areas of employment, labour and human rights law. We work with a wide range of employers - from global companies with operations in Canada to local owner-operators and start-ups - advising on the wide range of legal issues that arise out of the workplace, particularly workplaces in the tech and creative space. We also provide legal and strategic advice to employees throughout their employment journey. Blog posts are written by Lisa Stam, Hilary Page, Emily Siu, Danielle Murray, Lindsay Koruna, Jessyca Greenwood, Marnie Baizley, Matt Chapman, Evaleen Hellinga and Tiffany Thomas.

Footer

About us

Established in 1995, First Reference is the leading publisher of up to date, practical and authoritative HR compliance and policy databases that are essential to ensure organizations meet their due diligence and duty of care requirements.

First Reference Talks

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources
  • Buy Policies

Main Menu

  • About First Reference
  • Resources
  • Contact us
  • 1 800 750 8175

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

We welcome your comments on our blog articles. However, we do not respond to specific legal questions in this space.
We do not provide any form of legal advice or legal opinion. Please consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction or try one of our products.


Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · First Reference Inc. · All Rights Reserved
Legal and Copyright Notices · Publisher's Disclaimer · Privacy Policy · Accessibility Policy