The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Bowes v. Goss Power Products: No Duty for Employee to Mitigate When Contract Includes a Written Notice Term

by David Doorey June 21, 2012
written by David Doorey June 21, 2012

It’s summer now, when I usually slow down on blogging, but every day lately, something new and exciting happens in labour and employment law!  Here’s the newest jewell, brought to us by Chief Justice Winkler and the Ontario Court of Appeal today in a case called Bowes v. Goss Power Products.
For employers who like the idea of including an expressed notice term in their employment contracts, to avoid the implied duty to provide “reasonable” notice, pay attention.
Facts
Employee B. and Employer GP entered into an employment contract, drafted by the employer, which included a term saying that GP could terminate the contract without cause by providing notice, or pay in lieu of notice.  At the time he is dismissed in 2011, the contract required 6 months notice, or pay in lieu thereof.  The contract said nothing about a duty to mitigate.  However, the termination later advised B that he would receive 6 month’s continuation of his salary, but also included a sentence saying that B is required to seek out alternative employment and advise GP if he gets a job.  B obtained another job two weeks after being fired by GP.
GP declined to pay the continued salary beyond the 3 week period required by the ESA, taking the position that B had successfully mitigated.

Issue: Does an employee have a duty to mitigate when the contract specifies in writing the amount of notice required, and also the specific amount of pay in lieu of notice required, to terminate the contract?

Court of Appeal: Nope.  There is no duty on an employee to mitigate when the amount the employer must pay the employee to terminate the contract is written into the contract,  unless of course the contract expressly requires mitigation.
The lower court judge had followed a line of cases (including Graham v. Marleau Lemire Securities) finding that there was no legal difference, in terms of the duty  to mitigation, between a written notice term and an implied ‘reasonable notice’ term.  Recall that the requirement to provide ‘reasonable notice’ is an implied term, inserted into employment contracts by judges when the written contract is silent on how much notice is required to terminate the contract.  The duty to mitigate is a requirement that follows a breach of contract. When an employer terminates a contract without giving ‘reasonable notice’, it is breaching the contract.  The normal rules of damages specify that the employee by put into the position they would have been had reasonable notice be given, but that is subject to an obligation to make efforts to try and limit (or mitigate) those damages by looking for alternative work.
However, when a contract entitles an employee to a specific amount of notice (or money in lieu of notice), the employee is entitled to the contractual amount.  The issue of mitigation does not arise, because the court is not assessing damages for a breach of contract.  It is simply enforcing the clear language of the contract.  The parties had agreed that, as a condition of the employer terminating the contract, the employee would be entitled to X amount of money.  We can think of this a contractual requirement or as the fixing of ‘liquidated damages’, the purpose of which is to fix a sum to be paid the employee irrespective of the actual damage suffered by the employee, according to Winkler.  The purpose of such a clause is to introduce certainty into the contract, which would be inconsistent with implying a duty to mitigate.
Thus, Winkler wrote:

An employment agreement that stipulates a fixed term of notice or payment in lieu should be treated as fixing liquidated damages or a contractual amount.  It follows that, in such cases, there is no obligation on the employee to mitigate his or her damages.

There’s some great comments by Winkler in response to the employer’s claim that it would be ‘unfair’ to allow the employee to keep both the severance payment the contract required, and his new salary at the new employer.  Winkler writes:

It is worthy of emphasis that, in most cases, employment agreements are drafted primarily, if not exclusively, by the employer. In my view, there is nothing unfair about requiring employers to be explicit if they intend to require an employee to mitigate what would otherwise be fixed or liquidated damages.  In fact, what is unfair is for an employer to agree upon a fixed amount of damages, and then, at the point of dismissal, inform the employee that future earnings will be deducted from the fixed amount.  Notably, the concern expressed in Graham seems to disregard the oft-observed disparity in bargaining power between employee and employer.

We saw the same Court note recently (in Braiden v. La-Z-Boy)  that “in the employment context, there is inequality of bargaining power between employees and employers”, that employees are ‘vulnerable”, and that “recognition of this vulnerability is now so firmly embedded in the jurisprudence that it need hardly be recited.” Along the same lines is this little jewel about the desirability of the law treating the rich and famous the same as the ‘less privileged’ [though I note that B was a highly paid Vice-President]:

It is noteworthy that in the sports, entertainment and senior management fields it is commonplace for such contractual provisions to not be subject to mitigation.  Where the rich, famous, and powerful are involved, there is no suggestion that such payments are unfair to the other contracting party, even where there is, in effect, total mitigation of the loss.  A contract is a contract, and it is expected that it will be honoured.  Nothing short of this can be countenanced where the terminated employee is less privileged.

Bowes v. Goss Power is yet another exhibit in the ongoing evolution of employment law that is treating the employment contract as a special species of contract characterized by the inequality of bargaining power and the vulnerability of one party.

Implications?
The most likely impact of this decision will be that, in the future, employers will be careful to include an expressed requirement to mitigate if they elect to include a fixed amount of notice that exceeds the minimum statutory notice in employment standards legislation (there is no duty to mitigate associated with statutory notice requirements).

What do you think of this decision?  Do you think it is ‘fair’ that the employee gets to keep both his 6 month’s pay from his previous employer and his pay from his new employer?

 

 

4 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
Employment Law Challenge: Does Ontario Law Prohibit Child Labour?
next post
Newfoundland & Labrador Introduces Unionization Card-Check Model

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @CLJEHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

TheLawofWork
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
3h

My fingers are just too big to play an A chord on the #guitar.

Otherwise I would be a rock star. This is the only thing holding me back.

Reply on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Retweet on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Like on Twitter 1623109078431027200 12 Twitter 1623109078431027200
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
4h

Not seen comparable stats for Canada.There are terminations, but also better laws in most Canadian jurisdictions, including

- remedial certification
- interim reinstatement
- card-check/quick votes

“1 in 5 workers in US is fired for organizing a union” https://onlabor.org/labor-law-reform-is-needed-for-unions-to-succeed/

Reply on Twitter 1623103873161330688 Retweet on Twitter 1623103873161330688 Like on Twitter 1623103873161330688 1 Twitter 1623103873161330688
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
4h

This is Canada's federal Minister of Labour.

Bill 377 was a labor bill disguised as a tax law (so Cons could pretend it was federal jurisdiction) that buried unions in red tape & reporting requirements not applicable to any other orgs.

https://www.parl.ca/Content/Bills/411/Private/C-377/C-377_3/C-377_3.PDF

Bill 525 ...

1/2

Seamus O'Regan Jr @SeamusORegan

Bills 377 and 525 were two of the most anti-worker, union-bashing bills this country has ever seen - put forward by the Harper Conservatives.

We scrapped them. We believe in unions. We believe in workers.

Reply on Twitter 1623097471407644673 Retweet on Twitter 1623097471407644673 10 Like on Twitter 1623097471407644673 33 Twitter 1623097471407644673
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.