Krishnamoorthy v. Olympus Canada Inc.
Krishnamoorthy v. Olympus: Termination Clause & ESA Continuity
Summary
This appeal addresses whether a termination clause in a new employment contract offered by a purchaser of business assets is enforceable, specifically examining if section 9(1) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 deems employment continuous for all purposes and if the offer of employment constitutes valid consideration. The Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the ESA protects minimum statutory entitlements but does not deem continuity for all purposes, and that the offer of employment constitutes valid consideration for the new contract. The court declined to address alternative arguments regarding the termination clause's validity due to the absence of a cross-appeal and factual findings from the trial.
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Key Factors
- termination clause enforceability
- continuity of employment
- Employment Standards Act, 2000
- consideration
- sale of business
Related Cases
Baker v. Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc.
2026 ONCA 568 (CanLII) · 2026-08-06Ontario CA: Termination Clause Enforceability Under ESA
The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard appeals regarding the enforceability of termination clauses in employment contracts under the Employment Standards Act, 2000. The court addressed whether phrases like 'at any time' and 'for any reason' invalidate without cause termination provisions and whether 'just cause' definitions broader than 'wilful misconduct' are enforceable when minimum ESA entitlements are preserved. The court allowed the appeal in Baker and dismissed the appeal in Li, confirming that referential incorporation of ESA entitlements is acceptable and declining to reconsider the Waksdale precedent.
Fawcett v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada
2026 ONSC 1855 (CanLII) · 2026-04-28Fawcett v. Sun Life: Jurisdiction & LTD Dismissal
This case addresses whether a dispute arising from an employee's resignation and termination falls under exclusive arbitral jurisdiction via a collective agreement or can proceed as a civil claim for negligent misrepresentation. The court also examined whether an insurer's summary judgment regarding the termination of long-term disability benefits should be granted, finding genuine issues for trial regarding policy administration and credibility.
Chhelavda v. Huszti et al
2026 ONSC 2194 (CanLII) · 2026-04-13Fixed-Term Termination: Unenforceable Clauses & Liability
This case involves a determination on the enforceability of termination clauses in an employment contract and the remedies available for the early termination of a fixed-term agreement. The court found the termination provisions unenforceable due to non-compliance with minimum standards, applying principles from Waksdale v. Swegon North America. Additionally, the court confirmed the employee's entitlement to wages for the balance of the fixed term, citing Howard v. Benson Group Inc., and held individual defendants jointly and severally liable alongside the corporation following a default judgment.
Stribling v. Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc.
2026 ONSC 1030 (CanLII) · 2026-02-18Starbucks Settlement Enforceability: Repudiation & Duress
This is a summary judgment motion concerning the enforceability of a settlement agreement reached in the context of an employee's termination. The court addressed whether an email acceptance created a binding contract despite an unsigned release, whether the employer's erroneous 'for-cause' letter constituted repudiation, and whether the employee was subjected to financial duress. The motion judge found the settlement enforceable and dismissed the action.
Orr v Direct Coil Inc.
2026 CanLII 77416 (ON SCSM) · 2026-01-26Dismissal for Cause: HR Employee Confidentiality Breach
This case addresses whether an employer had just cause to dismiss an HR employee for breach of confidentiality and dishonesty, applying the McKinley and Dowling standards regarding trust in sensitive positions. The court upheld the dismissal for cause, finding that the misuse of personnel records and repeated denials were incompatible with continued employment. Additionally, claims for aggravated damages based on the manner of dismissal and human rights discrimination were dismissed.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Ontario Severance is an educational tool. If you are facing a serious employment law matter, consult with a qualified employment lawyer in Ontario.