A
"termination provision" refers to a clause or part of an agreement that outlines the conditions or methods by which either party involved can end or terminate the agreement.
Full definition
It does not include all terms, conditions, limitations, exclusions and
termination provisions of the travel insurance plans described.
A court is unlikely to enforce the
new termination provision because the revised employment contract will lack the necessary consideration to form a legally binding contract.
These stock option and bonus plans often
contain termination provisions that seek to limit the employee's entitlement to compensation under the plans if he or she has been dismissed.
There was no mention of any of the prior case law that had been consistently followed by lower courts in recent years that
required termination provisions to mention benefits in order to be enforceable.
In practice, many employers do not expressly bring the
new termination provision to the attention of their employees, let alone explain its implications prior to having their employees execute new employment contracts.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has once again weighed in on
termination provisions in employment agreements, this time noting that if any...
Historically, in making such assessments, adjudicators have considered common law principles relating to the dismissal, e.g. whether the employment contract
with termination provisions was entered into under duress or was the product of free will and whether the severance compensation the employer offered was «requisite [and]... enhanced to facilitate a quick resolution».
Licensing
Termination Provisions for Under - performing License Agreements After securing a patent on an invention and you are making money, another company may want to use the patented technology in their product or service.
Successfully represented the liquidators of Lehman Brothers Finance in two separate billion - dollar claims in the English Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court relating to unsegregated client monies and
early termination provisions of the 2002 ISDA Master Agreement.
When an employee's employment is terminated without cause, in the absence of an
enforceable termination provision in an employment agreement, the employee will be entitled to reasonable notice of termination of employment at common law.
Employers should also consider the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Howard v. Benson Group Inc. (see our previous blog post here) when
drafting termination provisions in fixed term employment agreements.
For example, in Kieran v. Ingram Micro Inc., 2004 CanLII 4852 (ONCA) another panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal reviewed the
following termination provision in a stock option plan:
Importantly, it also confirms that employers may dismiss probationary employees without providing reasonable notice under the common law, even if there is no separate
termination provision set out in the contract
While the decision appears to bolster the position of an employer that relies on an under - inclusive termination clause, the most prudent thing an employer can do is continue referencing all ESA entitlements when drafting employment
agreement termination provisions.
From an employer's perspective, a properly worded
termination provision addressing what is to be paid to the employee in the event of a termination without cause can result in a very significant saving.
It confirms for employees that the courts will look to protect them, and that employers will be held to a high standard in seeking to rebut their presumed common law obligations with a
written termination provision.
Just as the Employment Standards Act, 2000 prescribes a minimum wage below which an employer may not deviate, the Employment Standards Act, 2000
termination provisions governing notice and severance set out only the minimums below which an employer can not deviate.
We will have to see whether, and how, the courts will continue to find creative ways to
distinguish termination provisions, and hopefully will not leave the rest of us scratching our heads and squinting to see the distinction.»
The common understanding was that in order to protect employees, courts would
consider termination provisions that failed to reference the full scope of the employee's entitlements (including the continuation of benefits) to be unenforceable and instead grant common law notice of dismissal.
There had been a real willingness on the part of lower courts to rule that under -
inclusive termination provisions were unenforceable, and that employees subject to them were actually entitled to common law notice of termination (which, again, is often far in excess of what the ESA provides for).
The Court reviewed the jurisprudence on the enforceability of ESA -
only termination provisions and noted the employee received more compensation than she would have under the ESA.
The Court added to the basic implied term of advance notice a second term, namely, that this advance written notice be delivered in a manner which is consistent with the
mass termination provisions of the Employment Standards Act.
Therefore, the
entire termination provision was unenforceable and Mr. Roberts was not entitled to receive the contractual severance payment.
I've often been asked whether you can contract out of this right by having members waive it in advance or in restricting it in your bylaws, or whether an
automatic termination provision can be used to expel a member who brings such legal proceedings.
The exception to this general statement would be employees, such as senior executives, who have the power to
negotiate termination provisions that provide superior entitlements to that offered by the common law presumption that the employee is entitled to reasonable notice of dismissal.
The good news for employers is that the approach taken by the Ontario Court signals a continued shift away from the technical interpretation of
termination provisions used in previous cases (see: Dodich v. Leisure Care Canada, 2006 BCSC 93, 47 C.C.E.L. (3d) 206 (B.C. S.C.).
As this blog has explained before in a number of posts, see No Termination Agreement without Benefits and Poorly Drafted Employment Agreement Proves Costly, unless the contractual
termination provision meets the court's expectations, it will be struck down in favour of the legal presumption that employment can only be terminated on the provision of «reasonable notice.»
Under the Bill, for employees who are dismissed under the
group termination provision and are not given the required notice nor permitted to work during the notice period, the CNESST would be authorized to pursue the employer for the equivalent of what the employees would have earned had the notice requirements been respected.
When employers draft
generous termination provisions providing for more than statutory minimums, they must follow through on that generosity when terminating employees.
Labour Pains Scissors Beat Paper; Statutes Beat Scissors: Severability Clauses Can't Fix Illegal Termination Provisions
A recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal, Roberts v. Zoomermedia Limited, dealt with the unusual situation of a defendant employer arguing that its own
contractual termination provision was unenforceable and thus the plaintiff employee was entitled to common law reasonable notice.
Both Howard and Alsip are warning to employers who utilize fixed - term agreements that clear and unambiguous
early termination provisions are necessary to avoid costly pay - outs to employees.
That conclusion essentially upended the understanding shared by many employment lawyers and human resources professionals of the requirements of
enforceable termination provisions, as it had long been commonly assumed that the parties» intentions were irrelevant.