• First Reference
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Blog Signup 📨
  • 22nd Annual Ontario Employment Law Conference 📢

First Reference Talks

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

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources
You are here: Home / Employment Standards / Ontario judge delivers devastating blow to employers — Termination clause

By Doug MacLeod, MacLeod Law Firm | 2 Minutes Read October 13, 2020

Ontario judge delivers devastating blow to employers — Termination clause

termination clause

Earlier this year, the Ontario Court of Appeal (“OCA”) in Waksdale v Swegon North America Inc. struck down a termination clause. This was not groundbreaking as this court has struck down a number of termination clauses in recent years.

In the Waksdale case, the employer conceded that the “with cause” termination provision was not enforceable, and the OCA concluded that because this provision was not enforceable, then the entire termination clause was unenforceable.

Many employment lawyers have argued Waksdale is distinguishable from their cases because the lawyer does not agree that the “with cause” termination provision is not enforceable.

Now comes the Sewell v Provincial Fruit Co. Limited, 2020 ONSC 4406 decision, which is a trial decision.

One of the provisions of the termination clause under review read as follows:

b) Termination by the company for just cause

The Company is entitled to terminate your employment at any time and without any notice or any further compensation for just cause and the Company will not have any further obligations to you whether at contract, under statute, at common law or otherwise.

With respect to this provision, the judge wrote:

… I find that the “Termination for Just Cause” provision of the contract was illegal insofar as it contracted around the ESA requirement to provide notice except in cases where an employee engaged in “willful misconduct.” Based on the Court of Appeal’s reasoning, I must read the contract as a whole and set it aside if one or more of the terms are illegal, even if the offending term is not at issue in the instant case.

If Sewell is good law, then my guess is that many (if not most) of the termination clauses in Ontario are no longer legally enforceable.

The employer in Waksdale has sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”).

I do not know whether the Sewell decision has been appealed. If so and the OCA upholds this decision and the SCC denies leave in the Wakesdale case, then employee side lawyers in Ontario will no doubt ask for more termination pay because of the increased litigation risk that a termination clause will be struck down by an Ontario court.

If there was ever a time for the SCC to clarify the law of the enforceability of ESA termination clauses, now is that time.

  • About
  • Latest Posts
Follow me

Doug MacLeod, MacLeod Law Firm

Employment and labour lawyer at MacLeod Law Firm
For the past 30 years, Doug MacLeod, founder of the MacLeod Law Firm, a Canadian labour and employment law firm, has been advising and representing employers in connection with employee terminations. If you have any questions, you can contact him at 416 317-9894 or at [email protected]
Follow me

Latest posts by Doug MacLeod, MacLeod Law Firm (see all)

  • Wrongful dismissal: Does COVID matter? - February 9, 2021
  • Violating COVID-19 public health guidelines = Just cause - January 12, 2021
  • Doug’s top 5 employment law stories of 2020 - December 8, 2020

Article by Doug MacLeod, MacLeod Law Firm / Employee Relations, Employment Standards / employment contract, ESA termination clause, Ontario Court of Appeal, Sewell v Provincial Fruit Co Limited, Supreme Court of Canada, termination, Termination clause, termination for cause, Termination provisions, Waksdale v Swegon North America Inc 1 Comment

Share with a friend or colleague

Learn the 10 essential HR policies in the time of COVID-19

Get the Latest Posts in your Inbox for Free!

About Doug MacLeod, MacLeod Law Firm

For the past 30 years, Doug MacLeod, founder of the MacLeod Law Firm, a Canadian labour and employment law firm, has been advising and representing employers in connection with employee terminations. If you have any questions, you can contact him at 416 317-9894 or at [email protected]

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Paula MacLean says

    October 13, 2020 at 11:01 am

    I have always wondered if there is an issue with the “no further obligations” or “no further action” part of these clauses. Does this not imply that the dismissed employee is being asked to waive their right to legal action if they believe themselves to have been wrongly dismissed? Did the judge in this decision give us any clue as to what element of the clause he considered to be not legal? I’m wondering if we are focusing on the “with cause” element when the issue could be elsewhere.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Footer

About us

Established in 1995, First Reference Inc. (known as La Référence in Quebec) provides Canadian organizations of any size with practical and authoritative resources to help ensure compliance.

First Reference Talks

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources

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 - 2021 · First Reference Inc. · All Rights Reserved
Legal and Copyright Notices · Publisher's Disclaimer · Privacy Policy · Accessibility Policy