Sentences with phrase «rules termination clause»

Continue Reading The Pendulum Swings Back: The Court of Appeal Rules Termination Clause Valid Despite Silence on Benefits Continuation

The Pendulum Swings Back: The Court of Appeal Rules Termination Clause Valid Despite Silence on Benefits Continuation

Not exact matches

Members agree that any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to these Terms and Conditions, or the breach, termination or invalidity thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules in force and as may be amended by the rest of this clause.

This decision runs directly contrary to Nemeth v. Hatch Ltd., 2018 ONCA 7 («Nemeth «-RRB-, wherein the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that termination clauses do not need to contain specific language to oust the common law, as long as the «intention to displace an employee's common law notice rights can be readily gleaned from the language agreed to by the parties.»

While there appeared to be a consensus for years that strict language was required to displace the common law without infringing on the ESA, Rose says a 2016 Ontario Court of Appeal decision dismissed an appeal from a motion judge's ruling upholding a termination clause — providing «the minimum required by the ESA» — that was linguistically sparse compared to earlier rulings.

The discussion will cover issues including differing site conditions clauses, indemnity, liquidated damages, waiver of consequential damages, no damage for delay, claim notification requirements, terminations, payment withholding rules, terminations, and Dispute Review Boards.

Then the Ontario Court of Appeal in Oudin v. Centre Francophone de Toronto dismissed an appeal from a motion judge's ruling upholding a termination clause (providing «the minimum required by the ESA») that was linguistically sparse and relatively imprecise when compared to earlier rulings.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal ruled that the termination clause was unenforceable and thus, the employee was entitled to reasonable notice at common law.

While the ruling in Wood is not a clear «win» for employers, it is helpful in that Ontario employers now have much needed guidance on the language necessary to draft enforceable termination clauses.

If the researcher has to deal with a problem whether an agreement can ignore the desirability of a termination clause or whether an agreement can be terminated with notice, the identification of the default rule (and the Supreme Court case supporting it) makes research fairly straightforward.

In rendering its decision, the Court echoed the earlier sentiments put forth in Wood, indicating that when ambiguity exists in the interpretation of a termination clause, the Courts should rule in favour of the employee.

The Court had no difficulty applying prior case law to rule that where a fixed term contract is terminated early with no valid early termination clause, the employer is potentially liable for compensation over the balance of the term — no matter how long.

This decision extended the ruling in a 2012 decision, Bowes v Goss Power Corp. which had held that where an indefinite hire contract contained a termination notice clause allowing for termination on «6 months» notice or pay in lieu» and the employer terminated without working notice, there was no duty to mitigate damages or deduction for mitigation earnings.

on Ontario Court of Appeal Ruling Means Employers Should Be Reviewing Termination Clauses in Employment Agreements

Doorey, who calls the case «a head - scratcher,» points out that in Wright v. Young & Rubicam the court ruled a notice of termination clause in an employment contract that could conceivably leave an employee with less notice than the ESA requires at some point in the future is void and the longer period of reasonable notice is then required.

Top Reinstatement Clause In the event of your policy's termination because of nonpayment or other noncompliance with the insurance company's rules, you may still be able to reinstate your policy.