Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Can Employers Pay out Notice Entitlements in Instalments Rather Than Lump Sum? Yes. And No. Maybe.

by David Doorey September 19, 2011
written by David Doorey September 19, 2011

Thanks to the folks at Stringer Brisbin, a management-side labour law firm in Toronto, for making me aware of a recent case decided by our old friend Kevin (now His Honourable Justice) Whitaker of the Ontario Court of Justice.  The case raises another complexity on the sometimes confusing interrelation between the common law regime of contract law and the statutory regime of the Employment Standards Act, which I have discussed before.
The Common Law Issue
The issue in Bowes v. Goss Power Products was whether an employer could pay out the employees’ contractual notice of termination entitlement in weekly instalments, rather than as a one-time lump sum.  Bowes was dismissed after about 3.5 years service without cause. The written contract included a notice of termination clause that required the employer to give Bowes 6 month’s notice of termination or pay in lieu of notice.  Bowes very quickly found a job after only 12 days, earning the same salary he earned with Goss Power.
Bowes sued Goss Power.  The employee argued that he should have been paid the full 6 months notice at the time he was dismissed, rather than receive the notice in instalments over the subsequent 6 months, and that he was not required to mitigate his losses during that period. In other words, even though Bowes got a new job almost immediately, he wanted the full 6 month’s notice pay from his former employer.  For my new employment law students, “the duty to mitigate” means a legal requirement to try to minimize your losses caused by being fired.  That means looking for a new job.  If you find a new job that pays the same as your former job, then your loss from being fired stops, and your former employer may be entitled to benefit from your new hiring by paying you less notice.
The Court in Bowes v. Goss Power ruled that nothing in the contract prevented the employer from paying notice in instalments rather than a lump sum. Moreover, since the employee had a duty to mitigate his loses,  Goss Power was entitled to benefit from Bowes’ successful job search.  In other words, since Bowes got a new job after 12 days that paid the same, he did not actually suffer any wage loss beyond those 12 days.  Although the court does not directly say this, I assume this means that Goss could then stop paying the instalments. If anyone reads or understands this differently, let me know.
The Employment Standards Issue
As the Stringer folks note, there is a potential snag though.  The ESA also requires notice (and sometimes ‘severance’ pay in addition), and it does not permit it to be paid out in instalments.  The notice and severance pay requirements in the ESA are also not subject to a duty to mitigate.  The employee is just entitled to them, whether or not they get another job.

Section 61 of the ESA says that, if an employer elects pay in lieu of working notice, it must “pay in a lump sum” the amount the employee would have received had he worked the notice period.
Section 66 of the ESA says that severance pay can only be paid in instalments with the employee’s consent or approval by the Director (the government).

This would seem to mean that an employer may pay out contractual notice in instalments, and reduce those amounts if the employee successfully mitigates by finding alternative employment during the notice period (Bowes v. Goss Power).  However, paying out the minimum statutory notice (and severance, if applicable) in a lump sum and reducing the amounts due to mitigation by the employee are violations of the ESA.
Employers are aided with this particular confusing state of affairs by the Labour Board’s apparent willingness to ignore Section 61 and 66 provided the employer actually satisfies its requirements to pay the notice and severance pay.  See the case referred to in the Stringer summary called Nash v. Pan-Oston, where the Board said that paying notice and severance in instalments rather than the required lump sum is a mere “technical breach” of the legislation!  (Query why that language is there if employers can just disregard it).
Clear as mud?

3 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Ontario Election: Unions and Political Debate
next post
The Government's Activist Role in Air Canada Bargaining

You may also like

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

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

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

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
10h

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211852Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
10h

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
11h

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • 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
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • 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.