The Supreme Court suggests a more technical analysis of termination provisions is not the appropriate test, at least in Ontario.
On June 29, 2016 CCP blogged about the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Oudin v. Centre Francophone de Toronto where a termination provision was upheld despite the fact that it did not specifically set out each and every obligation the employer owed to the plaintiff under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”).
The decision stood for the proposition that the intention of the parties should be paramount in interpreting termination provisions and there was no evidence that the parties intended the termination agreement to be interpreted in the manner advanced by the plaintiff after being dismissed.
The Court of Appeal’s decision was considered a victory for employers given some fairly onerous contract drafting obligations required in previous lower court decisions. Similarly, now that the Supreme Court of Canada has refused leave to appeal in Oudin, employers appear to have greater latitude in arguing that a more technical analysis of termination provisions is not the appropriate test, at least in Ontario.
CCP believes that the real lesson of this case, however, is that litigation is an expensive undertaking, even when an employer is ultimately successful. A more carefully drafted termination provision would have likely prevented litigation in the first place and is still the very best defence an employer has in minimizing liability. The following is list of non-exhaustive factors to consider when drafting and presenting employment agreements to employees:
The lawyers at CCP are experienced in the drafting of enforceable employment agreements that comply with legislative obligations and court decisions. Click here for a list of lawyers that can assist with your employment contract questions.
More like this: