Hine v. Susan Shoe Industries Ltd. (H.C.J.)
Wrongful Dismissal: 24-Year Employee Challenges Notice Period Enforceability
Summary
A wrongful dismissal case where an employee with 24 years of service challenged the enforceability of a six-month notice period in their employment contract, arguing that changes in their role rendered the contract unenforceable. The court held that the substratum of the contract had not disappeared and that the six-month notice period remained enforceable. The court also interpreted the Master and Servant Act and Employment Standards Act, determining that the statutory severance provisions did not apply due to the agreed notice period exceeding the statutory minimum.
Outcome
Court held that the six-month notice period was enforceable and that the Employment Standards Act did not apply to the severance pay due to the agreed notice period exceeding the statutory minimum.
Key Factors
- wrongful dismissal
- notice period
- employment contract
- Master and Servant Act
- Employment Standards Act
Related Cases
Warren v. Canaccord Genuity Corp.
2026 ONSC 547 (CanLII) · 2026-01-28Wrongful Dismissal: 21-Month Notice Period and Mitigation Considered
A wrongful dismissal case involving a Managing Director investment banker who was terminated. The court determined a 21-month notice period and awarded bonuses during the notice period. Mitigation and credits were considered, reducing overall damages.
Adelman v. IBM Canada Limited
2026 ONSC 420 (CanLII) · 2026-01-27Wrongful Dismissal: 24-Month Notice Period for Senior IBM Executive
A wrongful dismissal case involving a senior executive with long service at IBM Canada Limited. The court determined a 24-month notice period and awarded damages for base salary, pension contributions, and benefits. The case also addressed the entitlement to a bonus and equity compensation during the notice period.
Pascuet v. Sky Service
2025 ONSC 6143 (CanLII) · 2025-10-31Wrongful Dismissal: Claim Dismissed as Statute-Barred
A motion for summary judgment was granted in a wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff's claim was dismissed as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002. The court applied the discoverability doctrine and ruled that the limitation period began on the date of termination, and the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption under s. 5(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002.
Ferguson v. Yorkwest Plumbing Supply Inc.
2025 ONSC 5408 (CanLII) · 2025-09-23Wrongful Dismissal: Plaintiff Awarded $170,415.42 in Damages and $6,879 in Costs
A wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff was awarded $170,415.42 in damages, including $60,000 in unpaid commissions, for a six-month notice period. The court also awarded $6,879 in costs for a successful motion for default judgment.
Carroll v. Oracle Canada ULC
2025 ONSC 4889 (CanLII) · 2025-08-26Wrongful Dismissal: 12 Months' Notice, $57,740.55 in Punitive Damages
A wrongful dismissal case involving a Global Strategic Client Executive with short service and high income. The court awarded 12 months' notice based on Bardal factors, denied damages for lost Restricted Stock Units, awarded benefits and RRSP contributions, and granted $57,740.55 in punitive damages for delayed commission payments.
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.