Not exact matches
The recent Alberta Court
of Appeal decision Styles v Alberta Investment Management Corporation has highlighted the inherent right
of an employer to terminate employment without cause
on reasonable notice or payment in
lieu thereof.
In contrast, his employer took the position that the inclusion
of the three - year term was merely a temporal cap
on his employment, and that it was able to terminate Mr. Alsip's employment by providing him
reasonable notice of termination
of employment or pay in
lieu.
At trial, the plaintiff sought pay in
lieu of common law «
reasonable notice» and argued that his written contract was unenforceable for two reasons: the contract allowed for termination without
notice in case
of «continuing incapacity considered permanent» (based
on legislation that was later amended) and allowed for termination
on only 15 days»
notice even though his service at the time entitled him to much more than 15 days»
notice under the ESA.
An employee may be dismissed either
on reasonable notice or by payment in
lieu of notice.
On the other hand, SNC - Lavalin claimed that 34 weeks
of compensation was within the «
reasonable range»
of payment in
lieu of reasonable notice of termination
of employment.
On the issue
of the amount
of pay in
lieu of reasonable notice to which Ms. Brake was entitled, and the effect
of her efforts to try to mitigate her damages, Mr. Justice Philips reasoned as follows:
The majority stressed that the right to terminate
on reasonable notice is an implied term — and not the breach —
of an employment agreement, and therefore payment in
lieu of notice is not damages for breach
of contract, but is part
of the compensation contemplated by the contract.
Calculating pay in
lieu of reasonable notice, as Justice John Laskin once wrote, is «an art not a science» (Minott v O'Shanter Development, [1999] OJ No 5 (OCA), but employment lawyers are reasonably good at predicting a range
of outcomes based
on precedent.