Employer Alert: Termination Clause UPHELD by Ontario’s Court of Appeal in Nemeth v. Hatch Ltd
On Monday, Ontario’s Court of Appeal concluded in Nemeth v. Hatch Ltd., 2018 ONCA 7 that the following termination clause was legally enforceable and that the terminated employee who had been employed for 19 years was entitled to 19 weeks termination pay:
The Termination Clause
The Company’s policy with respect to termination is that employment may be terminated by either party with notice in writing. The notice period shall amount to one week per year of service with a minimum of four weeks or the notice required by the applicable labour legislation.
My guess is that most employment lawyers who have read this decision are scratching their collective heads, and asking, “What?”
This decision will result in many plaintiff side lawyers taking pause and re-evaluating their cases.
Until this case was released many trial judges were bending over backwards to find uncertainty and ambiguity in termination clauses and striking them down which benefited employees. For a summary of some of these cases click here.
The decision in Nemeth v. Hatch Ltd. is a good case in point. An enforceable termination clause meant the employee was entitled to 19 weeks termination pay. If the clause had been found to be unenforceable however then the employee would have been entitled to closer to 19 months notice.
Lesson To Be Learned
At the moment, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to guess whether or not an Ontario trial judge will enforce a termination clause in an employment contract. The Court of Appeal has found a number of such clauses to be enforceable however for the last few years trial judges have been finding ways to get around these cases or as, lawyers say, have concluded these decisions are distinguishable.
In Nemeth v. Hatch Ltd. the Court of Appeal may have been trying to bring more certainty to the law as it relates to the enforceability of termination clauses. In the short term, however, I predict that this decision will create more uncertainty in this area of the law.
The material and information in this blog and this website are for general information only. They should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. The authors make no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of any information referred to in this blog or its links. No person should act or refrain from acting in reliance on any information found on this website or blog. Readers should obtain appropriate professional advice from a lawyer duly licensed in the relevant jurisdiction. These materials do not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and any of the authors or the MacLeod Law Firm.
Doug’s Top 5 Employment Law Stories of 2022
Here are my top 5 employment law stories for 2022: 1. COVID 19 - Temporary Layoffs This issue remains my number one story because this issue impacts so many court cases. Some judges have concluded that a temporary layoff set out in the Infectious Disease Emergency...
Reducing Litigation Risk
In a recent case, Pohl v. Hudson’s Bay Company, 2022 ONSC 5230 (CanLII),an employer was ordered to pay a long service employee the equivalent of about 3 years pay and contribute about $ 35 000 to his legal fees. Although this was a without cause termination case, it...
Employment Law Update: Electronic Monitoring Policy
A new amendment to the Employment Standards Act requires employers with 25 or more employees on January 1st of a given year to put in place a written policy regarding any electronic monitoring processes they use to monitor employees. The deadline for 2022 is October...