Another problem that may prevent an enforceable contract termination clause is that if the contract does not provide for seniority: MacGregor v. National Home Services, 2012 ONSC 2042. A termination clause does not apply if it violates other employment standards or other contractual rules: if you thought the termination clauses in your employment contracts were imperative, think again. The turbulent field of labour law strikes again in the Ontario Court of Appeal in Waksdale v Swegon North America Inc. decision. The Tribunal found that if an employment contract contains a redundancy provision contrary to the Employment Standards Act 2000 (ESA), the dismissal provision also becomes unenforceable for no reason. The same is true where the employer has not relied on the section that violates the right for dismissal. … The law does not allow employers to present modified terms of employment to workers, to dismiss them if they do not accept them, and to rely on ongoing labour relations in exchange for the new conditions. The difference between the severance and severance pay of a dismissed worker who has signed an employment contract with a termination clause limiting his rights to the ESA and what the worker would receive if he is entitled to appropriate dismissal can be considerable. The most extreme example in Ontario of the possible difference between ESA and reasonable dismissal would be a person who is entitled to only 8 weeks of redundancy under esa, but who would be entitled to reasonable 24 months` notice if the termination clause was not included in his employment contract34.
give laid-off workers legal notice (which is set at 8 weeks if the employee has 8 years or more of service). Employers will also be required to provide pay slips of more than $2.5 million to a worker with 5 years or more of service with statutory severance pay. See p. 64 (1) (b) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 In the case of an unlawful termination action, workers may remove the termination clause from their employment contract if they can prove that the termination clause is not applicable. If they manage to deduct the termination clause, the general law decision applies. However, as noted above, new counterparties are not sufficient to support the inclusion of a mandatory redundancy clause in an employment contract. It is customary for employers and lawyers to ignore the requirement that the employer can also prove that the worker knew that he was ceding the right to a fair dismissal at the time the new employment contract was signed. This could be done by sending the worker a letter clearly stating the worker`s right to appropriate dismissal and the consequences of the resulting change, or by ensuring that the worker has independent legal advice prior to the performance of the new employment contract. Impossibility of delivery – due to unpredictable and uncontrollable circumstances, it may be impossible for the parties to an agreement to perform their respective tasks. If you dismiss an employee for no reason and your deadline is enforceable without justification in the employment contract, you may not yet have a chance because your dismissal is void for reasons – even if you do not dismiss them for other reasons. As a result, you may be responsible for exponential severance pay more than you think. In a recent decision, the Ontario Divisional Court found that the following termination clause was not effective in dismissing the presumption of delay in the common law decision: if a termination clause does not meet, in all circumstances, the minimum requirements of ESA (or other labour standards), it will be automatically set aside and unenforceable to supersede into the presumption of default in the Common Law notice.
: wood v.