Termination clause
Ontario Court of Appeal confirms offer of employment is consideration after an asset sale
This case is a useful reminder that in asset sales, as opposed to share purchases, the purchasing employer is not obligated to hire all the vendor’s employees.
Short service employee gets four months’ pay in lieu of reasonable notice
Some employers erroneously believe that there is a “rule of thumb” in the common law that employees are entitled to a month of notice per year of service. The Ontario Court of Appeal has held that there is no such rule, and that determinations of reasonable notice must be based on an assessment of all relevant factors.
Amberber v. IBM Canada Limited: Termination clause fails to rebut employee’s entitlement to reasonable notice
A recent summary judgment motion before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Amberber v. IBM Canada Limited, serves as an important reminder to employers of the need to draft contractual termination clauses with a high degree of clarity, or risk unanticipated liability in the event of a without cause dismissal.
Employer unsuccessful in voiding unfavourable termination clause
A recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal dealt with the unusual situation of a defendant employer arguing that its own contractual termination provision was unenforceable and thus the plaintiff employee was entitled to common law reasonable notice. Employees frequently challenge the enforceability of a termination provision to seek common law notice, however, it is rare that an employer would do the same.
Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk
The three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with: an employment agreement not signed before the first day of work; a volunteer in a coma who willingly assumed risks of the task that caused his injury; and the electronic distribution of T4 information slips.
Termination clause and the importance of the word “minimum”
Employees are entitled to reasonable notice upon termination of their employment. However, a termination clause contained in an employment contract may oust the employer’s obligation to provide reasonable notice, so long as the termination clause actually limits the employee’s entitlement to notice, without violating employment standards.
Wrongful dismissal update: More kinds of damages being ordered
Once upon a time, employees did not sign employment contracts with termination clauses and employment lawyers fought over the appropriate “reasonable” notice period. In 2017, however, employees now claim in addition to wrongful dismissal damages, human rights damages, moral or Wallace damages, punitive damages, and damages for the intentional infliction of mental stress.
Employment contract oversight proves costly
As an employment lawyer, my consistent advice to employers is, whether you have one employee or one hundred employees, every employer needs to have written employment contracts. There are a number of ways that employment contracts can avoid or reduce liability, but the single most valuable term to include is a termination clause. In a written employment contract, employers have the opportunity to limit what can otherwise be a significant liability to their employees for termination pay, also referred to as severance or reasonable notice of termination.
Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk
The three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with: A case that addresses the validity of a termination of employment provision; Consumer Price Index (December 2016); and the release of revised noise guideline “A Guide to the Noise Regulation (O. Reg. 381/15) under the Occupational Health and Safety Act”.
Termination provisions in employment contracts
As an employee, by law, you are entitled to reasonable notice of termination of your employment. Employers however, often attempt to limit your legal entitlements by explicitly defining your rights upon termination in the employment contract. In the recent case of Singh v Qualified Metal Fabricators Ltd. an Ontario Court adopted an employee–friendly interpretation of these termination provisions, resolving the potential ambiguities in favour of the employee. While employers are allowed to contractually limit employees’ common–law reasonable notice requirements, they are required to do so with complete precision.
Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk
The three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with: A matter where the court had to determine the enforceability of a promoted employee’s new employment contract, particularly the termination clause; current and 2017 payroll rates; and PRPP legislation that is now in force in Ontario.
Fresh consideration and employment contracts
When a company promotes an employee, the employer should provide the employee with a new contract to sign prior to allowing the employee to commence his or her duties. In that way, the company is providing the employee with “fresh consideration” to make the contract enforceable. Consideration is the legal word for the exchange of something of value to make contracts enforceable and in a promotion it takes the form of the increased salary that comes with the new job. If the company allows the employee to be promoted and then has the employee sign an employment contract after the promotion has already taken place, there is a chance the employee can argue the terms of the contract that were not discussed pre–promotion should not be enforced for lack of fresh consideration rendering the terms of the contract unenforceable.
Termination clauses: Importance of clear language
In recent years, there have been many decisions on the enforceability and interpretation of termination clauses in employment contracts—which employers and their legal counsel read with both interest and apprehension. The Nova Scotia Supreme Court has now weighed in on the debate.
Ontario judge strikes down yet another termination clause
Some employment contracts have termination clauses which state that an employee will receive notice of termination “in accordance with the Employment Standards Act” or words to that effect. The purpose of this clause is to take away the employee’s right to common law “reasonable” notice of termination. In 2000 an Ontario Superior Court judge concluded that this kind of language meant that an employer was only required to provide the employee with the minimum notice of termination stipulated in the ESA. Advantage employers.
Ontario Court of Appeal suggest deference to trial judge in interpretation of termination clause
The Ontario Court of Appeal weighed in, to some extent, on the hot issue of enforceability of termination clauses in a recent decision. In this case, the clause at issue was written in French. The Applicant argued that the Motion Judge’s interpretation of the clause only referred to “notice” and not “severance” and therefore the termination clause was an unlawful attempt to contract out of the Employment Standards Act because it did not expressly provide for the payment of severance and there are a number of cases suggesting such clauses are void.
Get Free Updates
Resources and offers
Awards and recognition
#10 on Feedspot's Top 75 in 2016
Employment Blogs
Fodden Award for Best Canadian Law Blog
Legal Culture Award
Runner up in the Fodden Award for Best Canadian Law Blog
Finalist in the Fodden Award for Best Canadian Law Blog
First Reference HR compliance products and services
Recent comments
-
Racialized, foreign-trained lawyer discriminated against during interview
Ageism is a big problem in the legal community. Bay Street firms and others are not interested in applicants' skills, knowledge, etc. unless they are... – Nov 16, 11:05 AM
-
Believing women while remaining neutral: Conducting sexual harassment and sexual violence investigations in a post-#metoo world
Excellent article !! Right on point. So many times we encounter opinionated employer representatives or coworkers who address complaints from positions of bias. Bias that... – Oct 30, 12:07 AM
- Generated by BWP Recent Comments.
