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

Is a Notice of Termination Contract Term that COULD Violate the ESA Void?: Part Deux

by David Doorey February 25, 2013
written by David Doorey February 25, 2013

A recent decision of the B.C. Supreme Court raises again the question of whether a notice of termination clause in an employment contract is unlawful if it could possibly result in the employee receiving less notice than required by employment standards legislation.  The decision is almost certainly incorrect.  See if you agree.
First, recall that in a case called Machtinger v. HOJ Industries, the SCC ruled that a contract notice of termination clause that provides for less notice than the ‘minimum’ notice required by employment standards is void.  Because the notice term is void, the court will substitute the implied term requiring ‘reasonable notice of termination’, which is almost alway more than the ESA minimum, often significantly so.
Kelly v. Norsemont Mining (B.C. Supreme Court, 2013)
The new decision is called Kelly v. Norsemont Mining. The issue of whether the employer had cause to dismiss the employee with no notice consumes the first 90 paragraphs of the decision, but we needn’t concern ourselves with that.  In the end, the judge finds that contractthere was not cause, and therefore the employee was entitled to notice of termination.  The interesting issue is what that notice should be.  The contract included the following clause (see pg. 29):
“… either party may terminate this agreement at any time by giving the other party 30 days written notice.”
At the time Kelly was dismissed, he had been employed for 7 months, which entitled him to only 1 week’s notice under section 63(1) of the B.C. Employment Standards Act.  The judge ruled that the contract term was therefore not in violation of the ESA and was therefore enforceable:
“Under s. 63(1) an employee of seven months is entitled to notice or pay in lieu of one week. The contractual provision of one month’s notice therefore exceeds the minimum standard in the Act. Mr. Kelly, who acted without counsel, appears to have incorrectly relied on the maximum eight-week notice period provided for in the Act.”
Follow me so far?  Anyone see any problems with this reasoning?
Onwards.  Now, remember an Ontario case I described a while back called  Wright v. Rubicam Group. In that case, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that a contract notice term that could feasibly, in the future, have violated the Employment Standards minimum notice requirements is void, even if at the time the employee is dismissed, the contractual notice term did not violate the ESA.  The employee in Rubicam was entitled to 10 weeks (notice plus severance) under the ESA, and the contract term required the employer to give him 13 weeks’ notice, which was given.  Therefore, the contract term provided for a greater period of notice than the ESA, at the time the employee was fired. However, at some point in the future, had the employment continued, the contract term could have entitled the employee to less than the ESA requirements.  That’s because under the ESA, notice (and severance) entitlements go up over time until the reach a cap.
In Wright v. Rubicam, the Court relied on a decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal called Shore v. Ladner Downs(1998) for the point that a contract notice term is unlawful and void if  at some point in the future, it could fall short of the minimums in the ESA.   The Court of Appeal in Shore said that it was dealing with case of ‘first impression’, meaning that the issue hadn’t been raised before.  It defined the issue as being whether a contractual term that could at some point in the future provide for less than the ESA should be held to been voidfrom the beginning or should be held to become void only when the statutory requirement rises above the period fixed by contract. The Court of Appeal answered this way:

The policy considerations applied in (the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in ) Machtinger… would not be served if the contract were to be interpreted in favour of the employer so as to leave the individual employee responsible for determining, at the point of termination, whether the statutory minimum had risen above the notice period stated in the contract.  It is neither reasonable nor practical to leave the individual employee in the position of having to keep an eye on the relationship between the statutory minimum and the contractual term.

The Trouble With Kelly…
So, where does this leave us?  Recall that, in Kelly, the contract required 30 days notice of termination. Could that clause feasibly have put Kelly in a situation in which he would have received less notice under the contract than required by Section 63 of the B.C. ESA?
The answer is yes, isn’t it?  After 5 years, he’d have been entitled to at least 5 weeks’ notice under s. 63, right?  Five weeks is less than ’30 days’ required by the contract.  The judge was bound by Shore v. Ladner Downs, the Court of Appeal decision.  However, the judge doesn’t consider the Shore case or reasoning at all. Possibly, it wasn’t argued. Kelly (the employee) represented himself, always a risky venture.
Post-Script:  The  Kelly v. Norsemont Mining case is interesting for another reason.  The judge ordered the employer to pay the employee $100,000 in punitive damages, on the basis that the employer breached “its implied obligation of ‘good faith and fair dealing’!  The grounds involved threats to force Kelly into bankruptcy if he pursued his lawsuit, and alleging fraud as a grounds for dismissal without any merit.
I have to say that it would not surprise me if this case is appealed, and if so, that: (1) the punitive damages are reduced or even set aside; and (2) reasonable notice is ordered, because the judge wrongly found that contract notice term was enforceable.
Questions for Discussion
Do you think Kelly v. Norsemont Mining was correctly decided?  Will it be overturned (if appealed)?  On what basis?
Do you the a notice of termination clause in a contract should only be voided if it violates the ESA at the time of dismissal?  Or do you agree with the other decisions that find that it is void from the outset if it is possible to imagine a scenario where it would violate the ESA?

 
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
Senior Tory Senator Lambasts Conservatives for Politically Motivated Attacks on Unions
next post
The Complex Relationship Between Discrimination Grievances and Human Rights Complaints

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
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
josheidelson Josh Eidelson @josheidelson ·
5h

Scoop: Labor Board prosecutors have concluded Starbucks illegally refused to fairly negotiate at dozens of newly-unionized cafes across the country https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-28/starbucks-illegally-refused-to-bargain-on-zoom-nlrb-lawyer-says Starbucks’ refusal to negotiate if some workers participated via Zoom was illegal, NLRB general counsel says

Reply on Twitter 1640509028567506950 Retweet on Twitter 1640509028567506950 140 Like on Twitter 1640509028567506950 412 Twitter 1640509028567506950
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
alexisshotwell Alexis Shotwell @alexisshotwell ·
10h

This morning the president of @Carleton_U sent out a note underlining his understanding of “how painful labour disruptions can be to communities,” pleading for us to be calm and respectful and to support our students at the end of term. 1/

Reply on Twitter 1640430514627551256 Retweet on Twitter 1640430514627551256 84 Like on Twitter 1640430514627551256 242 Twitter 1640430514627551256
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
11h

Oh fun.

‘AI is on the cusp of taking control: This is how it may all go wrong’

https://apple.news/AWvPXyT8WTVOs5byQvVk-3Q

Reply on Twitter 1640408084093779989 Retweet on Twitter 1640408084093779989 1 Like on Twitter 1640408084093779989 3 Twitter 1640408084093779989
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.