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: Should we Replace Common Law "Reasonable Notice" with Fixed (Higher) Statutory Notice of Termination?

by David Doorey June 29, 2011
written by David Doorey June 29, 2011

Welcome to the Q&A File, a new Feature at Doorey’s Workplace Law Blog.  From the mailbag, I open with a question from York student Stuart:

The Q:
Good afternoon Professor Doorey,

I am an accounting student at york and I read your blog a couple of times a week; I find it extremely interesting, and useful for finding relevant topics to debate with other students and friends.  Recently we were discussing the ESA, and the rights prescribed under it, when someone asked ” Why not get rid of common law notice and increase the minimum standard under the ESA ? ” If its not to much trouble could you please discuss on your blog.
Thank you.
The A:

Hi Stuart, the question you raise is a subject of ongoing debate.  It would be easy to do what you suggest. All we need do is amend the ESA to include language saying that the notice of termination section in the ESA is a deemed term of every employment contract unless the parties agree in writing to a higher amount of notice, and to be clear, that the deemed term replaces any common law implied right to notice of termination.
Should we do that?
YES!
Since the common law notice requirement is mostly for the benefit of employees who have the means, knowledge, and courage to hire lawyers and sue their ex-employer, there is an argument that few would miss it if it was supplanted by a new, elevated statutory notice and that overall, employees would benefit from that change.  Employers would benefit too, at least in terms of certainty and less civil litigation.  In practice,  common law “reasonable notice”  is mostly a tool for privileged workers–high level managers and executives–while most workers have only the ESA to protect them, if that.
As I have noted before on this blog (here and here ), some employers ignore the “reasonable notice” requirement in any event and just pay ESA notice or slightly above.  Plus, an employer can always avoid “reasonable notice” by simply including a term in the employment contract that says only statutory notice is required, so it is already a tenuous right for employees.    By abolishing “reasonable notice”, we would cut down on the use of courts for employment matters, freeing up judges to deal with the real important matters–like bankruptcies, divorces, shareholder actions, and slip-and-fall cases.
These are all reasons to justify the argument you make.
NO!
On the other hand, there are arguments against your proposal. One is that the common law model takes into account a greater number of factors beyond length of service, and that can make for a more flexible, fair, and responsive approach overall.
Another is that the common law model sometimes scores victories for employees.  In recent years, common law judges have occasionally  held employers to account for their mistreatment of employees.  This takes the form of increased damages award, such as through the Wallace, now Honda process for punishing employers for “bad faith in the manner of dismissal”, or the new “ancillary damages” approach just applied in the Cuba v. Global Egg Corp case. Judges have also been developing the concept of an “implied duty of decent and civil treatment of employees” by employers, to give another example.
These interpretations of employment contracts can be useful to employees overall, and can signal to employers the need to treat employees with respect and fairness.  These rules tend to emerge from lawsuits brought primarily to recover common law reasonable notice damages.  So if we move away from “wrongful dismissal” cases and towards a purely statutory model, employees may lose out on progressive developments that are occasionally crafted by judges.
Another problem with moving to a purely statutory model is that the rules of notice would then be subject to political whims and trends.  An NDP government might increase the amounts, only to see a Conservative government cut them right down to almost nothing.   Who knows, perhaps we could drawn into a debate about whether we should be moving towards the American “at will” model, under which employees can be dismissed at any time, for any (or no) reason, without any notice. In labour law, we have heard the argument many times before that our workplace laws need to move down to the American standards in order to compete.
True, the amounts in the current Ontario ESA have been fixed for some time, through governments formed by all three political parties. But the existing amounts are so low that hardly anyone pays any attention.  If we start jacking up the periods of notice, then it could become a political hot button issue, like we have seen with the union certification process in recent years.  At least the Bardal v. Globe and Mail factors courts use in deciding how much notice is reasonable have been in place for decades, even if their application is uncertain from case to case.  Once we abolish the common law model, the statutory model may become more prone to the prevailing political winds.
These are just a couple of thoughts off the top of my head.  There are others.  So I open up the question to the community.
Should we abolish the common law “reasonable notice” rules and rely exclusively on statutory minimum notice periods?
 

0 comment
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
Postal Union to Challenge Back-to-Work Law
next post
Is the NBA Lockout Illegal in Canada?

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.