Condonation — Ontario Employment Law
Related Keywords
About Condonation
In Ontario employment law, "condonation" broadly refers to the act of accepting or forgiving a breach of contract by simply letting it happen without objection. It is a vital common law principle that applies to both workers and employers, often serving as a defense in constructive dismissal or wrongful termination claims.
For employees, condonation usually comes up when an employer makes a significant, one-sided change to the terms of employment—such as a deep pay cut, a demotion, a shift to a new compensation model, or a sudden temporary layoff. When this happens, a worker generally has the right to claim continuous employment was severed (constructive dismissal). However, if the employee continues to work under the newly imposed conditions for a prolonged period without voicing any objection, a court may determine they have "condoned" the employer's actions. By staying silent and accepting the paycheck, the employee legally accepts the new terms, erasing their right to sue for constructive dismissal.
For employers, condonation arises in cases regarding termination for cause. If an employer becomes aware of serious employee misconduct—such as policy violations, repeated lateness, or insubordination—but does nothing to discipline the worker, the employer is said to have condoned the behaviour. An employer cannot turn a blind eye to an issue for months and then suddenly pull it out of their back pocket to justify a firing without severance.
Importantly, Ontario courts do not expect workers to quit on the spot the moment their job changes. Employees are permitted a "reasonable" grace period to test out the new arrangement or assess their options before their continued presence is viewed as legal acceptance. Because the line between taking time to think and legally condoning a change is determined entirely by the unique facts and timelines of each situation, getting skilled legal insight early is the best way to safeguard your workplace rights.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does condonation mean in a workplace context?
Condonation means that you have legally accepted a change to your job or forgiven a breach of contract because you continued to work without raising a formal objection. Once a situation is condoned, you generally lose the right to pursue a legal claim over it.
How long do I have before I am considered to have condoned a job change?
There is no strict, set number of days under Ontario common law. Courts look at what is considered a "reasonable" amount of time for an employee to assess the impact of the change, which can range from a few weeks to a few months depending on the complexity of the new arrangement.
Can I keep working while deciding if I want to accept a pay cut?
Yes, Ontario courts allow employees a grace period to test out new terms. To avoid condoning the cut during this period, you must clearly communicate to your employer that you are working "under protest" while you evaluate your options.
Does going on medical leave mean I condoned a recent demotion?
Usually, no. If you are placed on a medical leave shortly after a significant workplace change, courts typically recognize that your primary focus was your health, meaning the clock on condonation is effectively paused while you are away.
Can my employer fire me for an old mistake they already knew about?
If your employer was fully aware of your past misconduct but took no disciplinary action and allowed you to keep working, they have likely condoned the behaviour. They cannot legally recycle that forgiven mistake later to build a case for firing you with just cause.
At what point should I talk to a lawyer so I don't accidentally condone a bad situation?
You should speak to an employment lawyer the moment your employer announces a major change to your duties, pay, or location. A lawyer can help you draft a formal objection immediately, stopping the condonation clock while you figure out your next steps.
Common Scenarios
- A company introduces a completely new commission structure that drastically reduces an employee's earning potential. The employee signs nothing but quietly continues working for eight months; when they finally try to claim constructive dismissal, a court finds they condoned the new compensation model by waiting too long.
- During an economic downturn, a worker is sent home on an unpaid temporary layoff. They do not object, wait out the layoff period, and accept a recall back to their previous position. By returning to work, they are generally deemed to have condoned the layoff procedure.
- A manager knows that staff members regularly take home expired inventory, despite a written policy forbidding it. A year later, the company decides it wants to fire a specific employee without severance and tries to use this habit as "just cause," but fails because the employer’s past silence constituted condonation of the rule-breaking.
What You Should Know
- If your employer changes your job in a way you find unacceptable, express your disagreement in writing (like an email) immediately to create a clear paper trail.
- Use the specific phrase "working under protest" in your written communications if you need to stay in your role temporarily to pay bills while you assess your legal options.
- Do not assume that refusing to sign a new contract protects you; continuing to show up and do the work can still be interpreted by a judge as implied consent.
- Since the window of time before a trial period turns into legal condonation is unpredictable, consulting an employment advocate as soon as the change is proposed is the smartest preventative measure.
Featured Cases
F. v. Susur Lee Group Inc.
2026 ONSC 4380 (CanLII) · 2026-07-28Constructive Dismissal Appeal: Condonation and Mitigation
This is an appeal to the Divisional Court from a trial judge's decision in a constructive dismissal case involving the Susur Lee Group Inc. The appeal addressed whether the employee's silence and delayed proceedings constituted condonation of the employer's repudiatory breach, whether ESA payments during a closure amounted to a return to work, and whether continued work could serve as mitigation. The Divisional Court found legal errors in the trial judge's analysis regarding condonation, the effect of ESA payments, and mitigation, allowing the appeal and ordering a new trial.
F. v Susur Lee Group
2025 CanLII 154498 (ON SCSM) · 2025-05-13Constructive Dismissal: Temporary Lay-off and Condonation
This case addresses whether a unilateral temporary lay-off without a contractual term amounted to constructive dismissal and whether the employee condoned the lay-off by returning to work. The court applied the Potter and Pham framework, finding that the employee's recall within 12 weeks and acceptance of pay constituted condonation rather than mitigation, leading to the dismissal of the constructive dismissal claim.
P. v. Qualified Metal Fabricators Ltd.
2023 ONCA 255 (CanLII) · 2023-04-13Constructive Dismissal: Layoffs and Implied Terms Appeal
This is an appeal from a summary judgment decision in a constructive dismissal case involving an employee laid off during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court of Appeal set aside the summary judgment because the motion judge erred by assuming consent to the procedure, and remitted the matter for trial to determine whether an implied term permitted the layoffs and whether the employee condoned them.
M. v. 1845035 Ontario Inc. (McGuinty Funeral Home)
2020 ONCA 816 (CanLII) · 2020-12-17Constructive Dismissal: Fixed-Term Contract Damages Appeal
This appeal addressed whether an employer's conduct, including removing a vehicle and changing locks, constituted constructive dismissal of a general manager under a fixed-term contract. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the employer repudiated the contract and that the employee did not condone the conduct despite being on medical leave. The court also affirmed the trial judge's reasonable estimates for calculating damages for salary, vehicle expenses, commissions, and benefits.
K. v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada
2011 ONSC 2305 (CanLII) · 2011-04-12Constructive Dismissal: Allstate New Model & Notice
This case addresses whether Allstate Insurance Company's implementation of a 'New Model' constituted constructive dismissal by fundamentally changing employment terms without reasonable notice. The court examined whether the two years' notice provided was sufficient under the Bardal factors and whether employment contracts permitted such unilateral amendments. Additionally, the court considered whether employees timely rejected the changes to avoid condonation and whether punitive damages were warranted due to alleged employer misconduct.
P. v. Rite-Pak Produce Co. Limited
2010 ONSC 3729 (CanLII) · 2010-06-30Constructive Dismissal: Condonation & Aggravated Damages
This case involves a constructive dismissal dispute where the employee was alleged to have engaged in illegal wine smuggling, but the employer's knowledge and condonation of the misconduct precluded dismissal for cause. The court reviewed the arbitrator's findings on whether the employee mitigated damages, the appropriateness of aggravated damages for defamatory statements, and the calculation of compensation during the notice period.
Q. v. Reprodux Ltd.
2010 ONSC 837 (CanLII) · 2010-02-04Constructive Dismissal: Employee Claims Poisoned Work Environment Due to Racist and Homophobic Slurs
A constructive dismissal case where the plaintiff alleged a poisoned work environment due to racist and homophobic slurs. The court examined whether the plaintiff was constructively dismissed, whether he condoned the abusive conduct, whether his employment was continuous, and whether he adequately mitigated his damages.
C. v. The Bank of Nova Scotia
2008 ONCA 769 (CanLII) · 2008-11-03Constructive Dismissal: Variable Compensation Reductions
This appeal concerns a Senior Vice-President's claim of constructive dismissal following reductions in variable compensation. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the fluctuations in compensation were consistent with the employment contract and did not constitute a fundamental breach, noting that the appellant had condoned earlier reductions.
G. v. Jo-Del Investments Ltd.
2003 CanLII 48118 (ON CA) · 2003-09-03Wrongful Dismissal: Just Cause and Condonation
This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario from a trial judge's decision regarding a wrongful dismissal. The employee sued the employer, but the trial judge found that taking a lengthy vacation without notice despite a clear warning justified termination for cause. The employee appealed, arguing the employer condoned his conduct by initially claiming the dismissal was for restructuring and offering severance pay. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the employer's initial actions were out of generosity and did not show an intention to condone the misconduct. The dismissal of the employee's action without damages stands.
C. v. Omni Insurance Brokers
2002 CanLII 44952 (ON CA) · 2002-05-28Wrongful Dismissal: Appeal Restores 6 Months Notice
This is an appeal from a wrongful dismissal decision where the employer alleged just cause due to employee misconduct and incompetence. The Court of Appeal restored the trial judge's findings, rejecting the employer's argument that prior misconduct was condoned and upholding the award of six months' notice.
G. v. Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Board
1995 CanLII 7288 (ON SC) · 1995-10-26Constructive Dismissal: Demotion and Contract Breach Case
A constructive dismissal case where the plaintiff alleged a fundamental breach of his employment contract due to a reorganization resulting in demotion and reduced responsibilities. The court examined whether the changes constituted constructive dismissal, whether the plaintiff condoned the changes, and the appropriate reasonable notice period. The case also addressed bonus entitlement and the duty to mitigate damages.
N. v. Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Toronto Inc.
1985 CanLII 1980 (ON CA) · 1985-05-06N. v BBB: Cumulative Misconduct Justifies Dismissal
The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the employer's appeal in a wrongful dismissal action, ruling that cumulative misconduct—including lateness, threats, and unauthorized absence—established just cause for dismissal. The court held that disparate instances of misconduct, even if condoned individually, could be combined to justify termination without notice, thereby negating the damages awarded at trial.
W. v. Toronto-Dominion Bank
1983 CanLII 1907 (ON CA) · 1983-03-29Constructive Dismissal: 12 Months Notice Awarded
This is an appeal concerning constructive dismissal where the employer unilaterally reduced the employee's salary and imposed a probationary period. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's award of 12 months' notice, finding that the employer's actions constituted a fundamental breach of the employment contract and that the employee did not condone these changes by continuing to work.