When fixed-term contracts are misused, they can become very risky for employers. Below are 4 common ones for employers to avoid.
Continue Reading 4 Common Mistakes to Avoid with Fixed-Term Contracts
With St. Patrick’s Day having just passed, many of us start to bank on luck at this time of the year. While luck might get you to the end of the rainbow on some things, we wouldn’t recommend that you lean on luck when it comes to non-existent, outdated or incomplete employment contracts.
The Consequences of Leaving it up to Luck
First, in case you’re new here or need a quick refresher, employment contracts are often recommended by lawyers and adopted by employers to bring a level of certainty to the employment relationship. Employment contracts can achieve a variety of things but generally, they set out the responsibilities and expectations of the employee and employer. If the employment relationship is bound by provincial employment standards legislation (it usually is), then the contract has to, at the very least, uphold the minimum standards of the applicable legislation.
If your employment contract runs afoul of the applicable employment standards legislation by failing to uphold the minimum standards as required by the law, your contract could be deemed unenforceable. Contracts could also be found to be unenforceable if they fail to comply with the principles of contract law. Continue Reading Don’t Leave it to Luck: Update Employment Contracts Following Substantial Changes to the Job
A new year often means some level of house-cleaning by employers, including the updating of core workplace documents. SpringLaw has seen a spike in this work because many employers understand, now more than ever, the need to have their employment contracts reviewed, with a particular focus on termination provisions. This review should include any ancillary policies, Codes of Conduct, or plan documents referencing when and under what circumstances an immediate termination for cause can occur. We refer to this as a ‘Waksdale review’ because it is driven by the court’s reasoning in Waksdale v. Swegon North America. For legal nerds, our prior blog details why a Waksdale review is necessary. Continue Reading Waksdale Reviews Spark Joy
The highest Canadian court has just confirmed that an invalid “just cause” termination section in an employment contract will also knock out the entire termination section, including the “without cause” section.
In our earlier blog discussing employment termination packages –Termination Entitlements: Benefits, Bonuses, and Commissions – we promised to keep you updated on 2020’s employment law decision of the year, Waksdale v. Swegon North America Inc. So here we go.
Leave to Appeal Denied
To recap, Waksdale was a decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal that immediately put termination provisions in jeopardy. In the case, the Court of Appeal found that the employer, Swegon North America, could not rely on their properly drafted “without cause” termination provision, in a without cause termination of their employee, Benjamin Waksdale. The reason is that the “with cause” provision in the same termination section of his contract was missing certain criteria and did not comply with Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000. We wrote about the decision last summer here.
Continue Reading Waksdale: Now the Final Word on Termination Provisions – Leave to Appeal Waksdale Decision to the Supreme Court of Canada is Denied
This Ontario Court of Appeal decision has been the talk of the town on all the Ontario employment law blogs and while we don’t like to be followers, we also wanted to make sure our readers did not miss this important decision. In Waksdale v. Swegon North America Inc. the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled on the enforceability of specific termination provisions in an employment contract, finding the “without cause” termination provision enforceable because of a flaw in the “with cause” provision.
Courts frequently come up with new ways of invalidating employer drafted termination provisions that would restrict an employee’s entitlement to notice. The enforceability of termination provisions is what lots of employment cases are about. A properly drafted termination provision in an employment contract can significantly limit an employee’s entitlement to notice of termination. For example, a long service employee terminated “without cause” could be entitled to as little as 8 weeks or as much as 2 years of notice depending on the contract.
Continue Reading Employers Get Out Your Contracts: An Important Ruling on Termination Provisions
