Working Notice — Ontario Employment Law

W. v. Procom Consultants Group Ltd.

The Divisional Court dismissed an appeal in a wrongful dismissal action concerning a fixed-term contract, addressing whether repeated extensions created indefinite employment, whether emails constituted effective working notice, and whether punitive damages were warranted for termination conduct.

P. v. Bravo Logistics Corporation

P. v. Bravo Logistics: Working Notice Appeal

This is an appeal from a trial judge's decision in a wrongful dismissal case involving an employee with seven years of service who was terminated without a written employment contract. The central issue was whether the employer's provision of ten weeks' working notice, later breached by preventing the employee from returning to work, constituted a valid agreement enforceable for damages or if it allowed the employee to claim common law notice. The Divisional Court reviewed whether the trial judge erred in enforcing the agreement and assessing damages based on the unpaid balance of that notice period.

W. v. CTS of Canada Co.

Appeal Allowed in Part: Mass Termination ESA Obligations

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a motion judge's summary judgment decision in a class action about mass termination rights under the Employment Standards Act. The representative employees sued the employer over the validity of their working notice period because the employer filed the mandatory Form 1 notice late and required them to work excessive overtime. The motion judge ruled that the employer had to file the form at the beginning of the 13-month working notice period, invalidating most of the notice given. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, ruling that the form only needed to be filed at the start of the eight-week statutory minimum notice period. Because the employer filed the form 12 days into that eight-week period, the employees were awarded 12 days' pay in lieu of notice, and the lower court's rulings invalidating notice during weeks of unlawful overtime were upheld.

N. v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada

N. v. Allstate: Working Notice & Compensation

This appeal concerns a wrongful dismissal claim where the appellant, an insurance agent, was terminated for cause after refusing to comply with fundamental changes to employment terms during a working notice period. The Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the respondents lacked the authority to impose such changes and that the appellant was entitled to compensation for the balance of the notice period.

W. v. CTS of Canada Co.

Mass Termination: No Credit for Working Notice

This class action concerns a plant closure and the employer's working notice under the Employment Standards Act. The court held that the Form 1 for a mass termination had to be filed when notice was first given, so the employer got no credit for the working notice given before it filed it, and no credit for any week in which employees worked overtime beyond ESA limits or overtime that hampered their job search. The Court of Appeal later reduced the Form 1 consequence to 12 days' pay (2018 ONCA 758).

B. v Milo-Food & Agricultural Infrastructure & Services Inc.

Wrongful Dismissal: Limitation Periods & Working Notice

This is a merits decision addressing the limitation periods for wrongful dismissal, intentional infliction of mental distress, and human rights claims following a termination where the plaintiff was given two years' working notice. The court held that the wrongful dismissal and severance pay claims were statute-barred because the action was commenced more than two years after the notice of termination, whereas the tort and human rights claims were not statute-barred as the alleged discriminatory and harassing conduct continued throughout the notice period.

S. v. BMO Nesbitt Burns

Wrongful Dismissal: Book of Business Damages & Double Recovery

This is an interlocutory decision regarding a wrongful dismissal claim where the plaintiff sought leave to amend his statement of claim to include damages for the value of his book of business. The court held that the proposed amendments introduced a new cause of action that was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and that awarding such damages alongside pay in lieu of notice would constitute impermissible double recovery. Additionally, the court rejected the argument for a right to working notice, confirming that employees are entitled to pay in lieu of notice rather than a transition period.

C. v. BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc.

Wrongful Dismissal: No Damages for Loss of Clientele

This is a Divisional Court decision regarding a wrongful dismissal claim where the plaintiff sought damages for loss of clientele and moral damages following termination without cause. The court ruled that the plaintiff had no right to working notice and that damages for loss of clientele were not recoverable under a wrongful dismissal claim. Additionally, the court found that amendments to the Statement of Claim introducing these new claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and that moral damages were unavailable due to a lack of proven bad faith or harm.

T. v. B.

Wrongful Dismissal: 18 Months Notice Upheld

This appeal addresses whether there is a functional legal difference between working notice and pay in lieu of notice, and whether an employer can unilaterally amend a notice period. The court held that no functional difference exists and that the employer was bound by the initial 18 months' working notice as no objective change justified the amendment to six months' pay in lieu. The court also determined that lack of bad faith did not warrant extending the notice period and awarded pre-judgment interest at 4.8%.