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.
There are many ways to attack the termination clause in an employment contract.
I am now surprised if employee counsel does not claim that their client’s termination clause is not legally enforceable - usually because the termination clause does not allegedly comply with the Employment Standards Act.
This blog considers a case, McKercher v Stantec Architecture Ltd., 2019 SKQB 100, where an employee successfully attacked the termination clause in his contract because he did not explicitly agree to it after being promoted.
The Facts
In 2006, Mr. McKercher commenced employment as a staff architect. The termination clause in his employment contract stated:
Termination other than for cause will be with notice or pay in lieu of notice, based on your length of service. If the Employer terminates your employment for other than just cause you will receive the greater of:
- a) Two weeks notice or pay in lieu of notice during the first two years of employment increasing by one week for each additional completed year of employment to a maximum of three months notice or pay in lieu of notice.
or
- b) The minimum notice of termination (or pay in lieu of notice) required by applicable statutes.
Eleven years later, when Mr. McKercher was employed as a Business Centre Sector Leader, his employment was terminated. The employer paid him the three months termination pay he was owed under his employment contract.
Another way to attack a termination clause: What is the changed substratum doctrine?
An Ontario judge in a 2012 case, MacGregor v National Home Services, 2012 ONSC 2042 (CanLII), described this legal doctrine as follows: "The changed substratum doctrine … provides that if an employee enters into an employment contract that specifies the notice period for a dismissal, the contractual notice period is not enforceable if over the course of employment, the important terms of the agreement concerning the employee’s responsibilities and status has significantly changed."
The rationale for this doctrine has been described by one judge, Schmidt v AMEC Earth & Environmental Ltd., 2004 BSCS 2012 (CanLII), as follows: "In my view, it was incumbent on the defendants to advise Mr. Schmidt that they intended to continue to rely upon the termination provision set out in the Agreement when substantial changes in his employment occurred. This would have allowed him to consider the matter and to negotiate for other terms. If the defendants wished to continue to rely on the termination provisions there ought to have been a ratification of the provisions as the nature of Mr. Schmidt’s employment changed."
Decision
The judge hearing this case relied on the following factors when deciding not to enforce the termination clause in the employment contract: ”...there is no evidence that (the employer) made it clear to the (employee) that the notice of termination provisions were intended to apply to the positions to which he was promoted. The employment agreement contains no express wording to this effect, nor does it contain any wording to support the inference of such an intent. Further, and in keeping with the analysis in Schmidt, the Court received no evidence that, as it promoted the plaintiff, SAL reasserted its understanding and expectation that the notice of termination limit would remain in effect.”
Lesson to be learned:
An employer should make it clear that the termination clause in an employment contract applies when an employee is promoted. This expression of this intent should be in writing and should be clear and unambiguous. I recommend that an organization’s employment be reviewed by an employment lawyer every year or two. If your employment contract does not address this issue then think about doing so the next time it is reviewed.
For 30 years, Doug MacLeod of the MacLeod Law Firm has been advising employers on all aspects of the employment relationship. If you have any questions, you can contact him at 416 317-9894 or at [email protected]
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.
Recent Posts
Duty of Good Faith: Do Employers Have a Duty to Disclose Material Facts to Employees Who are Making Employment Related Decisions?
The Facts Mr. Jonasson, a 55 year old engineer with 22 years’ service with Nexen Energy was thinking about either retiring or taking a leave of absence. He decided to request a six month leave of absence. The employer agreed to his leave request if he entered into the...
read moreEmployment Contracts: Unenforceable Termination Clause Costs Employer over $ 400 000
A recent case underscores the importance of including a properly drafted termination clause in your organization’s employment contract. The Facts In March 2010, CIGI hired Mark Menard, a chartered accountant, as Senior Director of Finance. He was responsible for the...
read moreDirectors Sent to Jail for Failure to Pay Employee Wages
If you are a director or a party to a unanimous shareholder agreement did you know that you are personally liable for unpaid wages and you could go to jail for up to one year for failing to pay them? So if you are a small business owner, have signed a unanimous...
read more