The purpose of severance is to bridge the gap while a person is unemployed and looking for a new job. As we often tell clients, severance is not intended to provide a windfall. When a person is dismissed from a job, they have an obligation to make reasonable efforts to offset the losses stemming from their dismissal (referred to as the “duty to mitigate”). In the right circumstances, this may include accepting an alternate offer of employment with the same employer or pursuing a reasonable opportunity that has been brought to their attention.

In a short decision, the Court of Appeal for Ontario has recently clarified an important question regarding fixed-term employment contracts. Namely, whether a fixed-term itself can be considered a type of termination clause.

2024 got off to a bang in the world of employment law. In a recent trial level decision, an Ontario judge has found yet another termination clause illegal and unenforceable. In so doing, the court accepted an entirely novel argument for why termination provisions may be read as impermissibly contracting out of the mandatory requirements of the Employment Standards Act, 2000

Among the changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic was an increased normalization of virtual meetings.

I can count on one hand the number of Zoom or Teams meetings I attended before March 2020. In 2023, by contrast, virtual meetings are an almost everyday occurrence.

The Canada Emergency Response Benefit (“CERB”) was a form of income replacement offered by the Government of Canada at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible recipients could receive $2,000.00 per month during the program’s 28-week duration (which ran from March to September 2020).

Losing a job can be an upsetting experience. This may be especially so where the individual in question had been employed for a long time, was part of a small tight-knit team, or the decision came seemingly out of the blue.

Our firm is often retained by employees and employers to provide advice on dismissal entitlements. One of the first places we look in this regard is to the parties’ written employment contract (if one exists). Employers have an incentive to implement written contracts as a means of limiting future dismissal costs. For similar reasons, contracts often come under heavy scrutiny by employees (and their lawyers) whenever a job termination takes place.

Hirings and firings are common to workplaces across Ontario. For various reasons, people come and go. Employment dismissals, however, when mishandled, can bring with them significant risk and result in unintended liability.

January has been a difficult month for many Ontarians. In addition to the short days, snow, and cold, we are dealing with rising interest rates and, for a significant number, loss of employment.

Termination clauses are found in most written employment contracts. They typically set out a fixed formula to govern severance entitlements upon dismissal.

Generally speaking, Ontario employees are entitled to receive reasonable notice of their dismissal from employment (subject to situations where the parties have agreed in writing an alternate lawful entitlement in this regard).

Earlier this month, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its ruling in Render v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited. This decision deals primarily with the plaintiff’s appeal of the trial ruling that his former employer had cause to terminate his employment, and he thus had no severance entitlement.

In wrongful dismissal cases, absent a lawful written contractual entitlement, the courts conduct an individualized assessment to determine what would be reasonable notice of the dismissal. In a recent contribution to First Reference Talks (a collaborative HR and employment law advisory blog), Paul Willetts highlighted two wrongful dismissal cases where the short-service plaintiffs who otherwise differed significantly (in terms of age, compensation and character of employment), both received a 2.5 month notice period.

Last year the Ontario Superior Court awarded a former Microsoft employee 23.75 months’ pay in lieu of notice following his without cause dismissal from employment. The court’s award included damages for stock awards that would have vested during the applicable notice period.

Dismissed employees are expected to actively search for new work if they want to preserve full severance rights. Yet a recent case out of Ontario suggests there may be more leniency for older workers. This reflects a judicial acknowledgment of the fact that re-employment opportunities tend to become scarce past a certain age.

Over the past year, numerous Ontario employers have had to downsize their operations and dismiss staff in response to the ongoing pandemic. Many of those who have lost their jobs turned to government income replacement programs while looking for new employment.

When Ontario courts assess whether an employee has been wrongfully dismissed, they often start by referencing the 1960 decision of Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd., 1960 CanLII 294 (ON SC).

Bardal directs courts to consider several factors specific to the employee when determining appropriate severance, including: 1) character of the employment; 2) length of service; 3) age at the time of termination; and 4) availability of similar employment.

When an employer dismisses an employee without cause, the employee’s work performance prior to termination is generally considered to be irrelevant. Ontario’s legal framework is concerned only with determining whether the employee was dismissed without receipt of either reasonable notice (in accordance with the common law or a written contract, as the case may be) and if not, calculating the value of damages that should be paid.