Sentences with phrase «unenforceable termination clause»

The Court further stated that an employer's conduct upon termination, or during the notice period, can not remedy an otherwise illegal and unenforceable termination clause.

However, the «voluntary contributions or offer to contribute to [the employee's] plans after giving her notice her employment was being terminated can not remedy an otherwise unenforceable termination clause.

The Respondent's actual conduct following the Appellant's termination was not determinative of the outcome — good employer behaviour can not remedy an otherwise illegal / unenforceable termination clause.

Ms. Wood argued that the enforceability of the clause was to stand or fall on its own wording, and that FDI could not remedy an otherwise illegal and unenforceable termination clause by its conduct.

Allowing a voluntary payment to an employee that complies with the ESA to cure what would otherwise be an unenforceable termination clause does little to incentivize proper drafting in the first place.

The Ontario Court of Appeal held that an employer's conduct upon termination or during the notice period can not remedy an otherwise illegal and unenforceable termination clause.

Not exact matches

As a result, Rose says, for now, it is safe to say that we know the courts will heavily scrutinize termination clauses in a manner that favours employees, and that if a termination clause has the potential to violate the ESA, then it is unenforceable.

In Howard the Ontario Court of Appeal awarded an employee whose employment was terminated 23 months into a five - year term damages reflecting the balance of the term on the basis that the contractual clause providing for early termination was unenforceable due to ambiguity.

The court found the termination clause to be unenforceable as it violated the minimum requirements of the ESA by permitting payments to be based solely on base salary, thus expressly excluding the employee's commission (which is required as part of wages under the ESA).

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 Court concluded that signing a written employment agreement the day after the employee commenced work did not render the agreement unenforceable, it found that the termination clause contained in the employment agreement improperly excluded the employee's minimum statutory entitlement to benefits continuation during the notice period.

Accordingly, the termination clause was void and unenforceable.

If a termination clause has the potential to violate Ontario's Employment Standards Act, 2000, then it is unenforceable.

The decision is a clear pronouncement that termination clauses that contravene the ESA will be unenforceable regardless of whether the employee receives at least their minimum ESA entitlements upon termination.

The Court of Appeal sided with Ms. Wood and found the termination clause to be unenforceable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned the Superior Court's decision and held that the termination clause contravened the ESA and was unenforceable.

Courts have focused on the various technical requirements in the language of termination clauses and, in the absence of the technical requirements in the termination clauses, courts have held such clauses to be unenforceable.

A recent case heard before the Court of Appeals for Ontario highlights the importance of unambiguous language in termination clauses, as any ambiguity will render the clause unenforceable.

Wood argued that the termination clause was unenforceable, however, because it excluded benefit pay and severance pay as per the wording of the clause.

Wood nonetheless sued Deeley for wrongful dismissal, alleging that the termination clause was unenforceable for being contrary to the ESA.

As a result of section 5 (1), ESA, the Court of Appeal stated that where the termination clause contains «even one» violation of the ESA, the entire termination clause would be considered void and thus, unenforceable.

For example, in Wood v. Fred Deeley Imports Ltd., 2017 ONCA 158, the Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that the termination clause at issue was unenforceable due to its failure to provide for the continuation of the benefits plan.

In this case the Ontario Court of Appeal determined that any breach of the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) in a termination clause of an employment contract, will render it unenforceable.

Although the termination clause provided more than the employee's minimum ESA notice of one week if terminated before the end of the initial one - year term, it was, in our view, unenforceable because of the possibility that the contract would be renewed multiple times, eventually resulting in the termination clause providing less than the employee's ESA minimums.

If a termination clause could breach the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the «ESA») at some point in the future, the clause is void and unenforceable even if the dismissed employee receives all necessary entitlements under the ESA at the time of termination.

Given the spate of recent decisions, is it a foregone conclusion that all termination clauses that fail to expressly mention benefits continuation through the statutory notice period are unenforceable?

She argued that the termination clause in the offer letter was invalid and unenforceable on the basis that it permitted the employer to terminate her employment without continuing her benefits for the duration of the notice period.

However, the Court of Appeal disagreed, on the basis that if a termination clause could breach the ESA at some point in the employment relationship, the clause is void and unenforceable even if the employee has in fact received all of her entitlements given when termination of her employment happened.

Namely, Zoomermedia establishes the principle that the courts will refuse to grant employers the benefit of an unlawful termination clause (that it drafted) being rendered unenforceable.

Although Deeley had provided Wood with the benefits she was entitled to during the notice period as well as a lump sum payment to arguably account for the lack of severance pay, this did not change the fact that the termination clause was deficient and unenforceable.

In the 2015 decision Carpenter v Brains II, Canada Inc. 14 Justine Stinson found the following termination clause to be unenforceable:

If the termination clause provides the employee with less than his or her entitlements pursuant to the ESA, the termination clause will be unenforceable and the court will strike the termination clause from the employment contract and award the employee reasonable notice of dismissal.

First, any attempt to contract out of or waive a provision of the ESA will render a termination clause unenforceable, even if both parties freely agree to do so.

The termination clause was also unenforceable because it combined two employer obligations under the ESA, namely to provide notice and to pay severance pay.

The reasoning in ADGA has been applied in several recent decisions of the Ontario Superior Court.7 This line of caselaw defeats the argument that a termination clause that provides for a minimum notice period but not a ceiling is ambiguous and therefore unenforceable.

As a result, the termination clause was void and unenforceable.

Her main contention was that the entire employment agreement was unenforceable, and, in the alternative, that the termination clause was unenforceable.

Such clauses would be unenforceable, and being forced to sign such a contract or face termination is likely to be itself a legal issue for the company.

Not surprisingly, in light of jurisprudence over the last few years striking out termination clauses, the court agreed, finding that the clause was ambiguous and, therefore, unenforceable.