• 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
You are here: Home / Employee Relations / Termination clause and the importance of the word “minimum”

By Jeff Dutton, Dutton Employment Law | 4 Minutes Read February 27, 2017

Termination clause and the importance of the word “minimum”

termination clauseEmployees 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.

A recent Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench case, Nutting v Franklin Templeton Investments Corp, 2016 ABQB 669, considered not whether a termination clause violated employment standards, but whether the language of the termination clause actually ousted the presumption of reasonable notice.

The employment contract in Nutting contained the following termination clause:

Additionally, your employment may be terminated at any time without cause upon the provision by FTIC of the minimum notice of termination, or pay in lieu of notice, benefits and, if applicable, severance pay prescribed by applicable employment standards legislation in the province in which you are employed. The provision of such notice or pay in lieu of notice, benefits and severance pay constitutes full and final satisfaction of all rights or entitlements which you may have arising from or related to the termination of your employment (including notice, pay in lieu of notice, severance pay, etc.), whether pursuant to contract, common law, statute or otherwise.

At trial, the employee argued that the termination clause failed to explicitly oust his entitlement to common law reasonable notice because it was unclear whether the language left open the ability to pursue more than the period of notice prescribed by Alberta’s Employment Standards Code, 2000. In other words, the employee put forth that the content of the termination clause did not actually confine him to some expressed maximum amount of notice.

The court, nonetheless, found otherwise, holding that the termination was unambiguous:

The language in this Agreement limits the Plaintiff expressly to “the minimum notice of termination, or pay in lieu of notice, benefits and, if applicable, severance pay prescribed by applicable employment standards legislation in the province in which you are employed.” That is a necessary reference to s 56 [of the Employment Standards Code, 2000] which prescribes certain minimum notice requirements. An employer must provide “at least” those amounts of notice and those minimum standards cannot be avoided: s4. [Emphasis in original]

The court distinguished earlier cases where the termination clause did not expressly limit notice because those termination clauses did not use the word “minimum” in the context of notice as prescribed by employment standards. For example, in the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision in Kosowan v Concept Electric, 2007 ABCA 85, the termination clause read:

…Should you be terminated for reasons other [than] cause then you will be entitled to notice or severance pay thereof in accordance with the Employment Standards Act of Alberta.

The court held that the Kosowan termination clause contrasted dramatically with the Nutting termination clause that referred specifically to the “minimum” requirements of employment standards. The court stated:

The Kosowan language did not attempt to limit the employee to the “minimum” requirements of the Code. That is important and is a point made by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Miller v. A.B.M. Canada Inc., 2014 ONSC 4062, where Glithero, J stated:

While counsel for the plaintiff submits that a termination clause simply stating that an employee is entitled to compensation in accordance with the legislation does not restrict the employee to the minimum notice period provided, that submission is based on Kosowan v Concept Electric Ltd, 2007 ABCA 85. The factual difference in that case is that the termination clause did not provide that the employee was to receive the “minimum” notice period as was provided for in the contract in this case. In this case the termination clause did specify that the minimum legislated notice was contemplated.

Thus, in the result, the Nutting court held that the termination clause clearly limited the employee to notice as prescribed by the Employment Standards Code, 2000, since it stated that he was entitled to “minimum” notice as “prescribed by applicable employment standards legislation”, rather just “notice” as “prescribed by employment standards legislation” (without the word “minimum”).

 Nevertheless, I do believe that even if the Nutting termination clause had failed to use the word “minimum”, then it may have been saved by the second part of the same passage, which provided that such notice constituted “full and final satisfaction of all rights”, including “common law” (reasonable notice). This line of reasoning is supported by the Ontario Court of Appeal, which, in Clarke v. Insight Components (Canada) Inc., 2008 ONCA 837, upheld a termination clause without the word “minimum” because, in part, that termination clause expressly ousted the “common law” by specific reference, thus clearing up any ambiguity. The termination clause there read:

Termination of Employment–Your employment may be terminated for cause at any time in which event you shall be entitled to only the amount of your salary and vacation pay earned up to the effective date of termination.  Your employment may be terminated without cause for any reason upon the provision of reasonable notice equal to the requirements of the applicable employment or labour standards legislation. By signing below, you agree that upon the receipt of your entitlements in accordance with this legislation, no further amounts will be due and payable to you whether under statute or common law. [Emphasis added.]

What this means for employers

When drafting a termination clause to limit an employee to notice “according to” or “as prescribed by” employment standards, do include the word “minimum” in the same passage. At the same time, always be sure to state that such notice displaces the right to “common law” reasonable notice.

  • About
  • Latest Posts
Jeff Dutton, Dutton Employment Law
Employment Lawyer at Dutton Employment Law
Jeff is a leading employment lawyer in Toronto. He represents both individual employees and management in all matters. Prior to founding Dutton Employment Law, Jeff was a prosecutor for the Ministry of Labour. He has been successful at the Ontario Labour Relations Board, Ontario Court of Justice and the Ontario Superior Court. Jeff is a frequent lecturer on employment law matters and has been widely published in newspapers and trade journals.
Latest posts by Jeff Dutton, Dutton Employment Law (see all)
  • Employer options in the face of COVID-19 - March 27, 2020
  • A beginner’s guide to without cause terminations - February 28, 2020
  • The effect of signing a severance package - January 31, 2020

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print
  • More
  • Reddit
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • Mastodon

Article by Jeff Dutton, Dutton Employment Law / Employee Relations, Employment Standards, Payroll, Union Relations / Clarke v. Insight Components (Canada) Inc., employee termination, employment law, employment standards act, employment standards code, Kosowan v Concept Electric, Miller v. A.B.M. Canada Inc., Nutting v Franklin Templeton Investments Corp, Termination clause, termination of employment

The Essential HR Policy Guide Banner

Get the Latest Posts in your Inbox for Free!

About Jeff Dutton, Dutton Employment Law

Jeff is a leading employment lawyer in Toronto. He represents both individual employees and management in all matters. Prior to founding Dutton Employment Law, Jeff was a prosecutor for the Ministry of Labour. He has been successful at the Ontario Labour Relations Board, Ontario Court of Justice and the Ontario Superior Court. Jeff is a frequent lecturer on employment law matters and has been widely published in newspapers and trade journals.

Trackbacks

  1. Top 5 Mistakes Employers Make in their Contracts - Toronto Employment Lawyers says:
    October 30, 2017 at 9:12 am

    […] contract is a termination clause which fails to explicitly state the employer is entitled to “minimum” notice “only”. Courts have consistently found that a termination clause was ambiguous because if it did not […]

  2. The Importance of the Word "Minimum" in Employment Contract Termination Clauses - Dutton Toronto Employment Law Firm says:
    May 16, 2017 at 2:41 pm

    […] This blog post first appeared in First Reference Talks. […]

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

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

 

Loading Comments...