Reasonable Notice — Ontario Employment Law
Related Keywords
About Reasonable Notice
When an Ontario employer terminates an employee without cause, they must provide notice of termination. Many people believe this is simply two weeks' notice or pay. However, the reality under Ontario's common law is often far more generous. This entitlement is known as 'reasonable notice.'
Reasonable notice is a common law principle, meaning it has been developed through court decisions over decades. It is the default right for any provincially regulated employee in Ontario who does not have a valid, enforceable termination clause in their employment contract limiting their notice period. This common law notice period is intended to provide a financial bridge for the terminated employee while they search for comparable new employment.
Crucially, reasonable notice is distinct from and almost always greater than the minimum notice and severance entitlements required by the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA). The ESA provides a statutory floor, but common law provides the actual ceiling for what an employee may be owed.
Courts determine the length of a reasonable notice period by applying a set of principles known as the 'Bardal factors,' named after a landmark 1960 court case. These factors are:
- Age of the employee: Older employees are generally awarded longer notice periods.
- Length of service: Longer service typically results in a longer notice period.
- Character of the employment: This considers the employee's seniority, responsibilities, and specialization. More senior or specialized roles often receive more notice.
- Availability of similar employment: The court considers the job market and how difficult it will be for the employee to find a comparable position.
Reasonable notice is not just base salary. It includes the total compensation the employee would have earned during the notice period, such as salary, bonuses, commissions, pension contributions, and the value of benefits. Because the calculation is based on multiple individual factors, determining your entitlement requires a careful analysis of your specific situation, making a professional assessment invaluable before accepting any termination package.
Frequently Asked Questions
What's the difference between reasonable notice and severance pay in Ontario?
Reasonable notice is a common law concept determined by the Bardal factors and includes your full compensation (salary, bonus, benefits). Severance pay is a specific, smaller entitlement under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA), which only applies to larger employers and longer-service employees. Common law reasonable notice is typically a much larger amount than ESA entitlements.
Is there a rule of thumb for reasonable notice, like one month per year of service?
This is a common myth. There is no simple formula. While length of service is an important factor, courts in Ontario conduct a holistic analysis using all four Bardal factors (age, service, role, and job market) to determine the appropriate notice period.
My employment contract says I only get two weeks' notice. Is that all I'm entitled to?
Not necessarily. A termination clause in a contract is only enforceable if it is very carefully drafted to comply with all legal requirements. Many termination clauses are found to be void by Ontario courts, in which case your entitlement defaults back to the more generous common law reasonable notice.
Do I still get my bonus and benefits during the notice period?
Generally, yes. The goal of reasonable notice is to make you 'whole' for the notice period. This means you are typically entitled to all forms of compensation you would have earned had you continued working, including bonuses, commissions, pension matching, and the value of health benefits.
How long do I have to sue for reasonable notice after being terminated?
In Ontario, you generally have a two-year limitation period from the date of your termination to file a lawsuit for wrongful dismissal and claim your reasonable notice entitlement. It is critical to act within this timeframe.
When is it worth talking to a lawyer about my notice period?
You should consider speaking with an employment lawyer as soon as you are notified of your termination and before you sign any documents, including a release or a final offer. An initial offer from an employer often only represents the statutory minimums, and a lawyer can help you understand if you are entitled to more under common law.
Common Scenarios
- A 58-year-old Director of Operations with 18 years of service is terminated without cause and offered 16 weeks' pay, which their employer claims is 'generous'.
- A 32-year-old software developer with 4 years of service at a tech startup is let go and offered only the two weeks' termination pay required by the ESA.
- A senior marketing manager is terminated, and the employer points to a clause in their 8-year-old employment contract that limits their notice to the ESA minimums.
- An employee is terminated and receives a payment in lieu of notice, but the payment only covers their base salary and excludes their significant annual bonus and car allowance.
- After a company merger, a 45-year-old accountant with 12 years of service is let go as part of a restructuring and is asked to sign a release in exchange for a small package.
What You Should Know
- Do not sign any termination offer or release document on the spot. You have the right to take it away and seek legal advice before agreeing to anything.
- Gather all relevant employment documents, including your contract, pay stubs, bonus history, and the termination letter itself. These are essential for assessing your entitlements.
- Remember that the minimum notice and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 are the legal floor, not the ceiling. Your common law reasonable notice entitlement is often significantly higher.
- Begin a job search immediately and keep detailed records of your applications, interviews, and communications. You have a duty to 'mitigate' your damages, and this documentation is crucial proof.
- Consult with an employment law professional to get a clear assessment of your potential reasonable notice period before you accept any offer. The difference between an initial offer and your full entitlement can be substantial.
Featured Cases
K. v. Crossbridge Condominium Services Ltd.
2026 ONCA 636 (CanLII) · 2026-09-10Wrongful Dismissal: Successor Liability & Notice Appeal
This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision granting summary judgment for common law reasonable notice and lost benefits in a wrongful dismissal case involving a building services provider. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that the incoming provider was deemed an employer under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, and confirming the application of statutory interpretation principles to establish successor liability.
W. v. Facebook Canada Ltd.
2026 ONCA 572 (CanLII) · 2026-08-07Facebook Canada Wrongful Dismissal: 10 Months Notice Awarded
The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed an appeal regarding the enforceability of termination clauses in an employment contract and the calculation of damages for wrongful dismissal. The court found that the termination provisions were unenforceable because they contravened the Employment Standards Act, 2000, specifically regarding probationary periods and the forfeiture of restricted stock units (RSUs). Consequently, the court upheld a common law notice period of 10 months and awarded damages for the RSU losses, while denying punitive damages due to the employer's conduct not being sufficiently reprehensible.
F. v. ProRich Seeds (2016) Inc.
2026 ONSC 4161 (CanLII) · 2026-07-16Constructive Dismissal: Dependent Contractor Awarded 21 Months Notice
This case addresses whether a salesperson was an employee, independent contractor, or dependent contractor, ultimately finding dependent contractor status. The court held that the employer's unilateral withholding of a long-standing monthly advance constituted constructive dismissal, entitling the plaintiff to reasonable notice.
C. v. Grand Cheese
2026 ONSC 4045 (CanLII) · 2026-07-13Wrongful Dismissal: Senior Executive Awarded 27 Months Notice
This is a default judgment ruling in a wrongful dismissal case involving a senior executive with lengthy service who was constructively dismissed without just cause. The court established liability based on deemed admissions and applied the Paquette v. TeraGo Networks Inc. principle regarding benefits continuity. The plaintiff was awarded twenty-seven months' pay in lieu of reasonable notice with benefits, along with partial indemnity costs and interest.
S. v. Royal Bank of Canada
2026 ONSC 3841 (CanLII) · 2026-06-30S. v RBC: 16 Months Notice for Wrongful Dismissal
This wrongful dismissal case involved a financial planner terminated for alleged cause, which the court set aside after finding the employer's investigation inadequate and biased. The court awarded sixteen months' reasonable notice and damages for aggravated mental distress and bad faith in the manner of dismissal, while rejecting the employer's mitigation defence.
N. v. Township of Morley
2026 ONSC 3772 (CanLII) · 2026-06-26Constructive Dismissal: Potter Test Applied
This wrongful dismissal case addressed whether the Township of Morley's actions constituted a constructive dismissal of the employee. The court found that the employer did not unilaterally change an essential term of the contract and that a reasonable employee would have persevered, thus constructive dismissal was not established. Consequently, the claim for damages was dismissed, although an alternative assessment of notice was noted as one year reduced to six months had liability been found.
W. v. Olympic Wholesale
2026 ONSC 3620 (CanLII) · 2026-06-26Wrongful Dismissal: 19 Months' Notice Plus 14 for Bad Faith
This wrongful dismissal case addressed whether a supervisor's long-standing practice of 'topping up' hours constituted just cause for termination under the ESA. The court found just cause was not established and determined reasonable notice based on the Bardal factors for a 55-year-old employee with 17 years of service. The court fixed reasonable notice at 19 months and extended it by 14 months because bad faith in the manner of dismissal impaired the search for new work.
K. v. GoEasy Ltd
2026 ONSC 3513 (CanLII) · 2026-06-16Wrongful Dismissal: 8 Months Notice & Inducement Claim
This wrongful dismissal case addressed whether an employer induced a senior employee from secure prior employment to increase the reasonable notice period, ultimately dismissing the inducement claim. The court determined an eight-month notice period based on Bardal factors, including the employee's senior management role and the availability of similar employment. Additionally, the court awarded pro-rated short-term incentive plan (STIP) and long-term incentive plan (LTIP) compensation during the notice period but dismissed claims for bad faith, punitive, and moral damages.
K. v. W.C. Reid Distributor Ltd.
2026 ONSC 5143 (CanLII) · 2026-05-12Wrongful Dismissal: Conversion to Action Motion
This is a procedural motion regarding whether an application concerning wrongful dismissal and human rights issues should be converted into a full trial action. The court applied the Collins Barrow test to determine if material facts were in dispute, concluding that issues such as mitigation and reasonable notice could be determined on an affidavit record. The motion to convert the application to an action was dismissed.
E.-F. v. Equine Canada et. al.
2026 ONSC 2721 (CanLII) · 2026-05-07Wrongful Dismissal: 4 Months Notice for Short-Service Director
This is an interlocutory proceeding involving a wrongful dismissal claim where the plaintiff sought summary judgment on reasonable notice and LTD entitlement. The court applied the Hryniak v. Mauldin framework to determine if a trial was necessary. While the court acknowledged the Employment Standards Act minimums and considered the Bardal factors for notice, it refused summary judgment on the LTD claim due to credibility conflicts and the need for factual findings regarding policy interpretation.
Y. v A.
2026 CanLII 48313 (ON SCSM) · 2026-05-04Probationary Employee Wrongful Dismissal: 3 Months Notice
This wrongful dismissal case concerned a probationary employee with only ten days of service who was terminated without notice. The court affirmed that common law reasonable notice applies to short-service employees, adapting the Bardal factors to the probationary context, and awarded three months' notice. However, claims for mental distress, aggravated, and punitive damages were dismissed due to a lack of evidence regarding the manner of dismissal and employer misconduct.
F. v. Sigma Lithium Corporation
2026 ONSC 2596 (CanLII) · 2026-05-01Constructive Dismissal: Damages for Unilateral Modifications
This case addresses whether unilateral modifications to duties and marginalization amounted to constructive dismissal, applying the Bardol factors to determine reasonable notice. The court found constructive dismissal established and awarded damages in lieu of notice, along with aggravated and punitive damages due to the employer's egregious conduct.
D. v. Interspec Systems Ltd.
2026 ONSC 2112 (CanLII) · 2026-04-09Wrongful Dismissal: Age Discrimination & Default Judgment
This is a merits decision granting default judgment in a wrongful dismissal case involving an employee terminated via relocation over 100 km without notice. The court found wrongful dismissal established, applying Bardal factors and mitigation principles to calculate damages for unpaid wages, vacation, benefits, and statutory pay under the ESA. Additionally, human rights damages were awarded for age discrimination targeting an older workforce, and joint and several liability was imposed on related corporations and the president under the oppression remedy.
W. v. Canaccord Genuity Corp.
2026 ONSC 547 (CanLII) · 2026-01-28Wrongful Dismissal: Managing Director Awarded 21 Months Notice
This wrongful dismissal case involved a Managing Director investment banker terminated from his senior role in a specialised mining practice. The court determined that 21 months was the reasonable notice period, applying the Bardal factors including the character of employment, age, and limited comparable opportunities. The court also addressed compensation during the notice period by adopting a comparator method for discretionary bonuses and adjusted damages for mitigation and deferred compensation.
A. v. IBM Canada Limited
2026 ONSC 420 (CanLII) · 2026-01-27Wrongful Dismissal: 24 Months Notice for Senior Executive
This wrongful dismissal case involved a senior executive with long service terminated by IBM Canada Limited. The court fixed a 24-month notice period based on the Bardal factors and awarded damages for base salary, pension, and benefits during that period. The court also addressed entitlement to discretionary bonuses and equity compensation (RSUs and stock options), awarding the bonus for the final year but denying it during the notice period, and awarding damages for cancelled equity based on implied sales dates.
N.M. v. C.T.
2026 ONSC 365 (CanLII) · 2026-01-19Constructive Dismissal: Part-Time Server Awarded 3 Months Notice
This is a merits decision addressing a claim of constructive dismissal involving a part-time server. The court found the employer's conduct made continued employment untenable and awarded three months' notice plus prejudgment interest.
S. v. 2554318 Ontario Ltd. O/a Tax Mechanic
2025 ONSC 6478 (CanLII) · 2025-11-10Wrongful Dismissal: Notice Period for Short-Service Employee
This wrongful dismissal case addressed the reasonable notice period for an employee terminated nine days before their one-year anniversary. The court considered the Bardal factors, including age and length of service, to determine if the plaintiff was entitled to four months' notice. Additionally, the court addressed procedural issues regarding an adjournment request by a self-represented corporate defendant and considered whether to award substantial indemnity costs due to the defendant's conduct.
T. v. Best Buy Canada Ltd.
2025 ONSC 5814 (CanLII) · 2025-10-15Wrongful Dismissal: 15-Year Employee Awarded 18 Months Notice
This wrongful dismissal case addressed whether an employer proved just cause for terminating a specialised technician with fifteen years of service. The court found the employer failed to meet the burden of proving intentional privacy breaches, establishing that the dismissal was without cause. Consequently, the court awarded eighteen months' reasonable notice, rejecting the employer's mitigation defence and denying claims for aggravated or punitive damages.
L. v. Veeva Software Systems, Inc. and Veeva Systems Inc.
2025 ONSC 7010 (CanLII) · 2025-10-07Wrongful Dismissal: Senior Product Manager Awarded 6 Months Notice
This wrongful dismissal case addressed the enforceability of a termination clause that was found void for conflicting with the Employment Standards Act, 2000, triggering common law reasonable notice. The court applied Bardal factors to determine a six-month notice period for a senior product manager and awarded damages including benefits calculated at 10 percent of base salary and incentive compensation for RSUs and stock options vesting during the notice period.
G. et al v. Canadian Imperial Bank Of Commerce
2025 ONSC 5218 (CanLII) · 2025-09-25Wrongful Dismissal: Unenforceable Termination Clauses & Notice
This wrongful dismissal case addressed the enforceability of termination provisions in employment contracts for federally regulated employees, applying the Waksdale framework to find clauses unenforceable due to ambiguity and overreach. The court also rejected saving provisions as a cure for statutory violations and determined reasonable notice periods of seven and twelve months for two plaintiffs based on Bardal factors. Damages were awarded for lost compensation, including bonuses and benefits, with no reduction for mitigation as the employer failed to prove the plaintiffs' refusal of alternative employment was unreasonable.