I have written several times about cases which significantly depart from the so-called one month per year of service rule. There continues to be a seemingly never-ending stream of cases which confirm the perils of assuming that an employer’s liability for reasonable notice of termination will be capped at one month per year of employment.
It can be surprisingly difficult for an employer to rely on statements such as “I quit” to establish that an employee resigned, particularly if the employee later indicates that they want to return to work. Courts require proof of a clear intention to resign in order to find that an employee terminated their employment. While the statement “I quit” may seem clear, courts will inquire into the circumstances in which the statement was made in order to determine whether the employee actually resigned.
A recent French language decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice indicates that more employers could be subject to liability for an employee entitlement often relegated to the role of afterthought: severance pay.
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.