Tag: Employment Contracts

Federal Post – First Edition

· 19 min read

Dear Friends, We are excited to bring to you our first edition of the Federal Post, a newsletter designed exclusively for federally regulated employers. The Federal Post discusses issues that are topical, timely and important. It will cover the gamut of matters which impact your workplace, from human rights to minimum standards to labour relations…

Courts Differ on Termination Provisions and Need for Future Compliance with ESA

· 2 min read

Over the last few years, courts have been reluctant to enforce different “ESA only” termination provisions due to ambiguity. However, not all judges have taken the same position with respect to what constitutes an ambiguous termination provision. The following two cases offer differing views on termination provisions in employment contracts and future compliance with the…

(Yet Another) Ambiguous “ESA-only” Termination Provision Unenforceable

· 2 min read

Another “ESA-only” termination provision in an employment contract has been found unenforceable by the Ontario Superior Court. In Howard v Benson Group, the Court decided that the termination provision providing only Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”) minimum entitlements was ambiguous; therefore, the common law applied and the plaintiff was entitled to reasonable notice of termination….

Termination Clause in Federal Employment Agreement Enforceable

· 2 min read

The recent decision in Luney v. Day & Ross Inc. is good news for employers. The Plaintiff worked for an interprovincial trucking company subject to the Canada Labour Code (“Code”). The Defendant terminated the Plaintiff’s employment without cause and offered the Plaintiff a severance package that it asserted was consistent with the termination clause in…

Ontario Court Voids Termination Provision for Non-Compliance with the Employment Standards Act

· 2 min read

In Miller v. A.B.M. Canada Inc., the Ontario Superior Court again nullified a termination provision in an employment contract because it did not strictly comply with the requirements of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”). The plaintiff worked for the defendant for 17 months in a middle management position at an annual salary of $135,000.The…

Another Reminder to Employers: Draft Termination Notice Provisions with Care

· 3 min read

The Ontario Superior Court has reaffirmed that if a termination provision in an employment contract does not strictly comply with the requirements of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”), it will be considered null and void. In Miller v. A.B.M. Canada Inc., the plaintiff, Mr. Miller, was a management accountant. He was hired into the position…

No Jurisdiction to Determine Unjust Dismissal Complaint Where Employee Terminated Without Cause Pursuant to Employment Contract

· 3 min read

In a recent adjudication under the Canada Labour Code (the “Code”), Adjudicator Rose relied on the Federal Court decision in Atomic Energy of Canada v. Wilson to grant an employer’s preliminary objection and dismiss an unjust dismissal complaint. In doing so, he found that in the case of without cause terminations an adjudicator lacks jurisdiction under the…

Court of Appeal for Ontario Considers Enforceability of Restrictive Covenants

· 1 min read

The Court of Appeal for Ontario has affirmed that if restrictive covenants are to be enforceable, they must be properly drafted. In Eagle Professional Resources Inc. v. MacMullin, the Court upheld the finding of a motion judge that “non-competition” clauses in the employment contracts of employees who left the plaintiff’s employ and joined a competitor…

Ontario Court of Appeal Decision Underscores Importance of Properly Drafted Restrictive Covenants

· 3 min read

A recent decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario reinforces the importance of carefully drafting restrictive covenants and considering what evidence is necessary to succeed on a summary judgment motion. The claim arose when individual employees left their employer to work for a competitor. The former employees were all subject to the same “non-competition”…