It is an error of law to apply a basic rule that provides the worker with a severance package calculated on the basis of a one-month period for each year of service. This is a mistake because the approach only takes into account the employee`s time of service and not other relevant factors such as the age of the employee and the availability of a similar job. Including a comprehensive provision of dismissal, a language that allows an employer to terminate a certain number of people for «cause» without any priority, and not the legal standard of «intentional misconduct.» Ontario employers may have difficulty enforcing a termination clause on a person (even if their language supersedes the common law) if the employer itself has not fulfilled its obligations under the same clause: Dwyer v. Advanis Inc., 2009 CanLII 23869 (ON SC). An employer has the right to terminate a worker`s employment at any time and for legal reasons. The employer only has to make appropriate redundancy or remuneration available to the worker instead of dismissal. For example, an employer could lay off a worker`s job, even if the worker is a good worker who has done nothing wrong. The employer has the right to terminate the hiring of its best seller. The decision may be a bad business decision (why lay off your best seller?), but the employer has the right to do so as long as the seller is accompanied by a work notice on his dismissal or a redundancy package. If you are an employee in Ontario who is laid off from your job, go to an employment lawyer to have your severance package checked before signing it to accept it. It is possible that, for any set of reasons (including those described in this article), you may have a basis for claiming additional severance pay.
As an employer in Ontario, it is a good practice institute and regularly checks your employment contracts. With these proactive measures, you can, with the help of an experienced work lawyer, create both safety and the risk of unintended liability. The first instance also held that in this case «there is no need to separate anything» since the termination provision is not applicable and there is no reason to unjustifily challenge the enforceable force of the closing clause. As this clause is not contrary to the ESA, it is «valid and applicable, as it has been written and agreed.»