Ontario Court of Appeal

Subscribe to Ontario Court of Appeal via RSS

In the recent case of Preston v. Cervus Equipment Corporation, Ontario’s Court of Appeal offered employers a friendly reminder that well-drafted settlement documents will survive judicial scrutiny.

Key Takeaways for Clients

Preston underscores the necessity of clear and precise language in settlement agreements. Employers should use broad and inclusive release language that can encompass a wide range of claims, even those not explicitly mentioned. By carefully drafting settlement agreements, employers can ensure that the settlement documents have the intended effect of concluding the employment relationship without courts stepping in to frustrate the finality of the settlement documents.

Background

The case revolves around the interpretation of a release and indemnity clause in the settlement documents signed by Mr. Preston after his termination from Cervus Equipment Corporation. Mr. Preston was employed by Cervus from 2014 to 2018 and participated in the company’s Deferred Share Plan.

Upon his termination without cause in January 2018, Mr. Preston had 4,964.04 vested stock units valued at $75,949.81 and 4,499 unvested stock units. Cervus informed him that his vested stock units could be exercised according to the Plan and offered him a severance package of 15 weeks’ pay in lieu of notice. The parties then discussed and settled the matter. The settlement documents included a broad release of claims, which Mr. Preston signed after receiving independent legal advice.

Notably, the release language in the settlement documents did not specifically refer to the stock plan and vested stock units in question, but did reference that Mr. Preston was releasing all claims connected to his employment, and that he had no entitlement or claim with respect to any bonus, share award, stock option, or similar plan that his employer had offered to him.Continue Reading Ontario’s Court of Appeal Highlights the Importance of Respecting Broad Release Language in Employment Settlement Agreements

In September 2022, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Pavlov v. The New Zealand and Australian Lamb Company Limited (“Pavlov“) confirmed that an employer may be liable for a longer notice period, even for a short-term employee, based on prevailing economic factors beyond the parties’ control. In this case, it was COVID-19.

Background…

In Render v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited Group, the Ontario Court of Appeal redefined wilful misconduct under the Employment Standards Act and confirmed the modern day approach to assessing sexual harassment in the workplace.

The Decision

Mark Render was terminated for cause after slapping a female co-worker on her behind. The trial judge found…

In an encouraging decision for employers, the Ontario Court of Appeal clarified that a corporation is not a common employer just because it “owned, controlled or was affiliated with another corporation that had a direct employment relationship with the employee”. In O’Reilly v. ClearMRI Solutions Ltd., 2021 ONCA 385, the Court affirmed that the…

The Ontario Court of Appeal released yet another decision on the interpretation and enforceability of termination clauses: Rossman v. Canadian Solar Inc., 2019 ONCA 992. Recent appellate decisions on this matter have been inconsistent on this issue and unfortunately, Rossman is more bad news for employers. Nevertheless this decision provides guidance that should be considered in reviewing and drafting termination provisions in employment contracts.
Continue Reading Saving Provisions Unable to Save Termination Clauses

Courts usually treat incentive compensation as part of the compensatory damages owed in lieu of common law reasonable notice of dismissal. However, if the employment contract and/or the incentive plan unambiguously extinguish entitlement to incentive compensation upon notice of dismissal, the agreement(s) will generally prevail over the common law entitlement. In O’Reilly v. IMAX Corporation, the Ontario Court of Appeal once again stressed the importance of using precise language in bonus or stock option plans to deny, or otherwise limit, employee entitlement to incentive compensation during the reasonable notice period.
Continue Reading Avoiding the Cost of Imprecise Language in Incentive Compensation Plans

Employers often wish to enter new or updated employment agreements with existing employees. The driving force is typically that circumstances have changed, but it can also be that the employer simply wants different or additional terms. However, the employer must give the employee valid consideration, otherwise the new or updated agreement will not be enforceable.
Continue Reading A New Contract for a Current Employee? Consider the Consideration!

The Ontario Court of Appeal has reiterated that, barring exceptional circumstances, reasonable notice for dismissal without cause will not exceed 24 months. The Court partially overturned the lower court’s decision in Dawe v The Equitable Life Insurance Company of Canada, which also ruled on the enforceability of unilateral changes to the employer’s bonus plan.
Continue Reading 24 Months Reaffirmed as the “High End” of Reasonable Notice; Bonus Plan Changes Must Be Accepted by Employee

In recent years, Canadian courts have increasingly heard large civil claims against Canadian companies for alleged human rights violations in their foreign operations. As we have discussed previously, judges faced with these claims must determine whether the court’s jurisdictional reach extends to the company’s activities in its global supply chain, thus permitting foreign claimants to pursue their action in Canada.
Continue Reading Rana Plaza Class Action Blocked in Ontario & Nevsun Decision Challenged at Canada’s Highest Court