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

Q&A: Can Employees Recover Reasonable Notice Damages by Filing ESA Complaint?

by David Doorey January 24, 2012
written by David Doorey January 24, 2012

We know that an employee cannot pursue both a “wrongful dismissal” lawsuit and a claim for termination and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act. That is the effect of Sections 97 and 98 of the Ontario ESA.  Often, an employee would be entitled to greater damages if they  pursued the lawsuit, but most employees do not have the money or time to retain a lawyer and spend two years in litigation to recover their contractual entitlements.  A quicker, cheaper route is to simply fill in an ESA complaint and recover their minimum entitlements under the ESA.
So even though a contract might require the employer to provide the employee with, say, 7 months notice of termination, an employee may end up settling for the 6-8 week’s notice the ESA entitles them to.  Its a great tradeoff for employers.  Not so much for employees.

But here is a legal puzzle for you.  Can an employee claim entitlement to “reasonable notice” damages in a claim for unpaid “wages” in an ESA complaint, and thereby forego the need to file a costly and time-consuming wrongful dismissal complaint?

I’m not aware if there are any cases directly on this point, so if you know of one, please let me know.  My sense is that this claim is rarely raised, but there is a pretty good argument that the Act does permit this.  Let’s walk through the statutory language.
Damages for Unpaid Wages During a Period of Reasonable Notice are “Wages” Within the Meaning of the ESA
Start with the definition of “wages”.  It says that wages means any “remuneration payable by an employer to an employee under the terms of  an employment contract“. This definition incorporates into the ESA machinery any terms of the employment contract that require payment of remuneration to an employee.
What is a “wrongful dismissal” lawsuit? It is just a claim for wages that should have been paid to the employee during a period of notice of termination required by the contract.  If the employee had been given the proper contractual notice, they would have received their wages for that period.  So pause here to note then that a claim for wrongful dismissal is really just a claim for “remuneration payable by an employer to an employee under the terms of an employment contract.”  This seems to suggest that “wrongful dismissal” damages [unpaid wages for a period of contractual notice] are wages within the meaning of the ESA.
A Period of “Reasonable Notice” in a Contract Term Is Usually a ‘Greater Benefit’ than the Statutory Minimum Notice
Now note that Section 5(2) says that when a term in an employment contract requires a greater benefit to an employee than a minimum standard in the ESA, then the contract term applies and not the minimum standard.  That is why if you make a claim for unpaid wages under the ESA, and your pay rate is $20 per hour, you will be entitled to $20 per hour and not the minimum wage in the ESA.  You are allowed to recover in an ESA complaint contractual benefits that are higher than the ESA benefits.
Note now that the ESA also deals with the situation of an employer who dismisses an employee without providing notice, in Section 61.  That section says that an employer can terminate an employee without notice provided they pay the employee the wages and benefits they would be entitled to under the ESA period of minimum notice.  However, if the contractual notice period (“reasonable notice”) is greater than the notice period required by Section 57 (which it often will be), then the contractual notice period supersedes the Section 57 notice period for the purposes of the ESA on a clear reading of the ESA.
Is that right?
This brings us back to the original question:  If an employment contract requires that the employer pay wages to an employee with 8 years service a period of, say, 7 months’ “reasonable notice” before the contract can be terminated, then that contract term supersedes the requirement in Section 57 (and Section 61) for the employer to pay the employee wages for a period of at least 8 weeks.  If  that is a correct interpretation of the ESA, then it follows that the employee should be able to recover the 7 months’ wages by filing a complaint under the ESA, rather than pursue a civil lawsuit in a court for wrongful dismissal.
This approach would simplify matters considerably for employees, lower enforcement costs, and keep many wrongful dismissal complaints out of the courts.  It would require employment standards officers and the OLRB to calculate periods of “reasonable notice”, something that is usually the domain of courts and judges.  However, calculating reasonable notice has become more a mechanical exercise than one requiring great sensitivity and legal judgement.  Lawyers are using computer software or tables of prior decisions to estimate a number in the ballpark of what is reasonable given an employee’s seniority and type of job, and increasingly courts are deciding wrongful dismissal cases in summary judgements without a trial due to the uncomplicated process involved in determining reasonable notice.  This isn’t rocket science.
The Statutory Cap on Wage Recovery Damages Means This Interpretation Would Primarily Assist Low Wage Workers
Of course, the ESA sets very low caps on the damages awards.  Section 103(4) says that maximum amount of “wages” that an employer can be ordered to pay is only $10,000. Most employees would reach that threshold pretty quickly if notice damages were based on contractual “reasonable notice” rather than statutory minimum notice.  But that just means that in those cases, the ESO or OLRB would not actually need to calculate the precise period of minimum notice.  They would just need to decide if that notice period is at least long enough to bring the damages to the $10,000 threshold.  Because of the low damages threshold, employees who would be entitled to large notice damages in a court (because they have long service, they are managerial types, and/or receive high pay) would find little value in going the ESA route discussed here to recover notice damages.   But if recovering wages for the contractual notice period by filing an ESA complaint were possible, many employees at the lower end of the pay scale would find value in it.  They would have a better chance of recovering more of the amounts they were contractually entitled to in the first place without having to bother with the cost and hassle of a lawsuit.  Wouldn’t that be a good thing in terms of equity and access to justice?

Can anyone explain to me why the ESA does NOT permit employees to recover wages for the period of reasonable notice through an ESA complaint?  What section undermines the argument described above?
If this is possible, why do you think more employees don’t try this approach?

 

4 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
Garrie v. Janus Joan: OHRT Assesses Lost Wages of Dismissed Disabled Worker Based on Hourly Rate of $1.25
next post
Bad Employers: Special Raspberry Prize Goes to… Premier Fitness

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 219 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24 Feb

@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 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24 Feb

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·
24 Feb

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.