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

Elsegood v. Cambridge Springs: Court of Appeal Clarifies Law on Temporary Layoffs

by David Doorey January 11, 2012
written by David Doorey January 11, 2012

I’ve noted before that the intersection between the common law regime of the employment contract and the statutory regime of employment standards is often confusing.  One of the most mysterious intersections is the contrasting treatment of temporary layoffs.
Under the common law, a temporary layoff will amount to a breach of the employment contract, and probably a constructive dismissal, unless there is an expressed or implied term in the contract granting the employer the right to temporarily layoff workers.  That was the point raised in the decision Davies v. Fraser Collection (2008).  A temporary layoff is really just an employer telling an employee that they are not permitted to report to work until told otherwise and they will not be paid in the interim.  This amounts to a fundamental breach of the employment contract unless the parties have agreed otherwise.   The employee has the option to treat the layoff as a dismissal and recover their contractual entitlement to notice of termination.
Enter the Ontario Employment Standards Act.  That legislation expressly recognizes a legal right to temporarily layoff workers in the definition of a termination. It does so in the following way.  Section 54 of the ESA says that an employee with at least three month’s service cannot be “terminated” without having been given statutory notice.   Section 56 then reads (in part) as follows:

What constitutes termination
56.  (1)  An employer terminates the employment of an employee for purposes of section 54 if...
(c) the employer lays the employee off for a period longer than the period of a temporary lay-off.
(2) For the purpose of clause (1) (c), a temporary layoff is,
(a) a lay-off of not more than 13 weeks in any period of 20 consecutive weeks;
(b) a lay-off of more than 13 weeks in any period of 20 consecutive weeks, if the lay-off is less than 35 weeks in any period of 52 consecutive weeks and, [there is a list of situatuions that follows, one of which must be present.]
Temporary lay-off not termination
(4) An employer who lays an employee off without specifying a recall date shall not be considered to terminate the employment of the employee, unless the period of the lay-off exceeds that of a temporary lay-off.
Deemed termination date
(5) If an employer terminates the employment of an employee under clause (1) (c), the employment shall be deemed to be terminated on the first day of the lay-off.

This is a complicated statutory mechanism, but in essence it says that a temporary layoff is not a termination or a constructive dismissal for the purposes of the ESA, until a certain period of time has passed, after which a temporary layoff becomes a dismissal.  Therefore, we are left with the apparent anomoly that a temporary layoff is a fundamental breach of contract (at common law), but not a breach of the ESA creating an entitlement to termination pay under that statute.
Follow?
A great new case from the Ontario Court of Appeal explains how these two regimes interact.  It’s called Elsegood v. Cambridge Spring Service.
Facts
The employer lays off the employee who had 7 year’s service for a period that ends up being longer than 35 weeks in a 52 week period.  Therefore, the temporary layoff becomes a termination under the ESA by operation of Section 56(2)(b).  The employee then sues the employer for wrongful dismissal rather than file a claim for statutory notice.  He is awarded nearly $10,000 for reasonable notice by a Small Claims Court reflecting a period of 6 month’s notice, far more than the 7 week’s notice he’d be entitled to under the ESA.
The employer appeals.  It makes the peculiar argument that the employee was never terminated under the common law, because the ESA is a distinct regime.  In other words, it claims that the fact that a temporary layoff becomes a dismissal under section 56 of the ESA after 35 weeks does not effect the parties’ contractual situation under the common law!  By this reasoning, says the employer, the employment contract was never terminated at all, even though the employee had become entitled to termination benefits under the ESA.  Apparently, the employment contract would just continue on indefinitely into the future with the employee on temporary layoff.
The Decision
The Court opens its reasoning by reminding us that “statutes enacted by the legislature displace the common law“.  This leads to the conclusion that the state has defined the end point of the employment relationship in the statute:

The legislature has provided that when a layoff reaches 35 weeks in 52, the employee is terminated. The legislature’s action leaves no room for the continued operation of the common law respecting when an employee is terminated.

Therefore, it appears that at the very latest, an employment contract ends under both the ESA and the common law when a temporary layoff becomes a dismissal under the ESA.   However, the contract may come to an end sooner than that under the common law.  In fact, it can end the moment that a layoff is implemented if the employee elects to treat the layoff as a dismissal.
The court affirms that a temporary layoff is a constructive dismissal in Ontario, unless the contract includes a term stating otherwise:

[14]         At common law, an employer has no right to layoff an employee. Absent an agreement to the contrary, a unilateral layoff by an employer is a substantial change in the employee’s employment, and would be a constructive dismissal.

Since the ESA does not displace any common law rights flowing from an employment contract (see Section 8), this means that an employee who is laid-off under a contract not providing the employer with the right to layoff can quit and claim their contractual notice of termination (which is usually more than the ESA minimum notice), notwithstanding that their entitlement to minimum notice under the ESA has not yet been triggered.
Parties Cannot Agree to a Term Granting Employer to Temporarily Layoff  a Worker for Longer than a Temporary Layoff Under the ESA
The Court notes also that even if the contract here included an implied term allowing a temporary layoff, which the employer asserted it did, that term could not grant the employer the right to layoff the employee for a greater period than described in Section 56(2).  If it did, it would amount to contracting out of the right to termination pay created by Sections 54 and 56, and the parties aren’t permitted to contract out of an ESA benefit (see section 5).
Result:  Employer loses appeal.  Employee entitled to the reasonable notice, plus interest, plus legal costs amounting to an additional $15,000.

What do you think?  Is all of this sensible, or clear as mud?

 

0 comment
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
Congratulations to Craig Scott!
next post
Should the Canadian Labour Movement Provide Dental, Health Insurance to Canadian Workers Directly?

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

Subscribe via Email

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

Join 335 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦Follow

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

David J. Doorey🇨🇦
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
11h

And my nephew.

Doug Ford@fordnation

Today, I had the pleasure of introducing my new cabinet, an experienced team that will deliver on our plan to build Ontario. #ONpoli 4

Reply on Twitter 1540489820304072704Retweet on Twitter 1540489820304072704Like on Twitter 15404898203040727042Twitter 1540489820304072704
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
16h

I’m sure Mr Ford Jr. is the most qualified among Conservative MPPs on multiculturalism.

Reminds me of that dude with the stash in Alberta who is Minister for Women’s Issues.

Dennis Buchanan@LawyerBuchanan

I'm mostly surprised that Doug didn't just create a new role and portfolio for the Minister of My Nephew Wants a Cabinet Salary. https://twitter.com/robferguson1/status/1540367169753649153

Reply on Twitter 1540408905737674752Retweet on Twitter 1540408905737674752Like on Twitter 15404089057376747523Twitter 1540408905737674752
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
20h

My new @DalhousieLJ article is ready to go, examining how 4 Canadian provinces (Ontario, Alberta, NS, PEI) have persisted with a 1940s era law excluding lawyers & other professionals from #CollectiveBargaining legislation.

Clear #Charter violation. Yet the exclusions persist.

Reply on Twitter 1540350048122425345Retweet on Twitter 15403500481224253454Like on Twitter 15403500481224253458Twitter 1540350048122425345
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
  • 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.