That said, there have been a number of decisions in the past couple of years which have upheld arguably
unlawful termination clauses in favour of employers, thus creating uncertainty for employees and a possible incentive for employers to not even meet minimum ESA requirements for severance.
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.
Not exact matches
Kasirer J.A. held that the
clause was
unlawful because it penalized parties for
terminations which they might not have been in a position to control:
It found that the
termination clause explicitly excluded benefits continuation which amounted to an
unlawful contracting out of the ESA.
Clauses in employment agreements that preclude an employee from competing with the employer following
termination of employment will be struck down as an
unlawful restraint on trade and contrary to public policy, unless they can be justified on the basis of reasonableness.
The
termination clause was found to be
unlawful and therefore void because the words «any amounts paid» could be read as failing to provide for the continuation of the plaintiff's benefits during the plaintiff's statutory (ESA) notice period.