Wrongful Dismissal Update: How to Reduce Termination Pay for Employees Who Earn Variable Compensation

by | Mar 19, 2019 | For Employers

Some employees receive a large percentage of their total compensation in variable compensation.

A much litigated issue is whether the employer is required to pay variable compensation to a terminated employee during the applicable notice period and if so how is this compensation calculated.

The Case

In a recent case the Ontario Court of Appeal (“OCA”) considered whether an employee who claimed constructive dismissal was entitled to a bonus and a shareholder bonus during the applicable notice period. This case illustrates the kind of litigation risk that arises in these kind of cases.

The Facts

Ms. Evans, a salesperson and a minority shareholder in Paradigm Capital Inc., was offered a demotion which she refused after about 5 years service at the age of 44. She earned a salary of $75 000, was eligible for a bonus, and as a minority shareholder she was entitled to receive a shareholder bonus.

Trial Decision

The trial judge concluded Ms. Evans was not required to accept a lesser position, and was constructively dismissed and was entitled to about $69 000 pay in lieu of 11 months notice. He also awarded Ms. Evans a bonus of $86 771.21 and $79 792.58 for the shareholder bonus during this notice period. He also ordered the employer to pay Ms. Evans. $ $195 412.59 towards her legal costs.

Court of Appeal Decision

Constructive Dismissal – The OCA agreed that the employee was constructive dismissed. There is much litigation risk on this issue because if the court didn’t conclude Ms. Evans was constructively dismissed then she would have been awarded no termination pay.

Notice Period – The OCA refused to interfere with the 11 month notice period. There is much litigation risk on this issue because a judge has much discretion when determining the appropriate notice period. I suspect some judges would have found a notice period as little as five  months in this case.

Failure to Mitigate – The OCA refused to interfere with the trial judge’s decision that it was reasonable for Ms. Evans to refuse a demotion. If the court concluded Ms. Evans should have taken the demotion then she would have been entitled to little (if any) damages.

Bonus – The OCA refused to interfere with the judge’s decision to calculate the bonus based on what she would have earned during the notice period as opposed to an average of the bonus she earned in the three years prior to her termination. I believe many other  judges would have calculated the bonus based on Ms. Evan’s historical bonus’ which would have been a much higher amount.

Shareholder Bonus – The OCA overturned the trial judge’s decision to award Ms Evans a shareholder bonus during the notice period because she was required to sell her shares when her employment was terminated under a shareholder agreement.

Lessons to Be Learned

  1. It does not make much (if any)  financial sense to litigate most wrongful dismissal and constructive dismissal cases where no employment contract exists. In this case, the employer was ordered to pay a five year employee earning $ 75 000 a year about $ 155 000 in damages plus more than this amount for her legal fees. Cases with much litigation risk like this one should be settled in mediation if not before if at all possible.
  2. An employment contract can reduce or eliminate most litigation risk in connection with employee terminations. In this case, the contract could have given the employer the right to change the employee’s duties, and established an agreed upon notice period.
  3. All variable compensation plans should clearly state whether or not the employee is entitled to any variable compensation after the employee’s last day of active employment and if so how this compensation is calculated.

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 directly 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

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...

read more

Toronto Office

702 - 2 Bloor Street West,
Toronto, ON M4W 3E2

Barrie Office

277 - 92 Caplan Avenue,
Barrie, ON L4N 9J2

Collingwood Office

220 - 1 First Street
Collingwood, ON
L9Y 1A1



+1 (888) 640-1728


(866) 883-8445


[email protected]

Toronto Office

729 - 2 Bloor Street West, Toronto ON M4W 3E2

Barrie Office

277 - 92 Caplan Avenue, Barrie ON L4N 9J2

Collingwood Office

220 - 1 First Street, Collingwood, ON L9Y 1A1


Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from our team.

You have Successfully Subscribed!