Labour and Employment Law Blog

As discussed in prior blog posts, the Employment Standards Regulation was previously amended to extend the temporary layoff period due to COVID-19 to a maximum of 24 weeks in a period of 28 consecutive weeks provided the layoff started before June 1, 2020 and ended by August 30, 2020. Employers wishing to extend the temporary layoff period beyond 24 weeks must apply for a ...

The B.C. government has announced that the allowable length of a temporary layoff period under the Employment Standards Act will be further extended during the COVID-19 pandemic, from 16 weeks (within a 20 week consecutive period) to a maximum of 24 weeks. The text of the amended legislation has not yet been released. Read the government news release here.

Our previous blog ...

On May 4, 2020, the B.C. government passed an Order in Council to add a new provision to the BC Employment Standards Regulation (the “Regulation”) during the current provincial state of emergency. Temporary layoffs related to COVID-19 can now last up to 16 weeks in a 20 consecutive week period without triggering termination of employment.

This is the second change to ...

At the time of writing, more than 1,600 people have died in Canada due to COVID-19. The total number of confirmed cases is over 35,000. Given the magnitude and the seriousness of COVID-19, it was astonishing to read about an 18 year old girl from Hamilton, Ontario, who forged a medical note from her doctor stating she had tested positive for the virus. Not only did this excuse the ...

The B.C. Employment Standards Branch (“ESB”) has recently published guidance on how business closures and staffing reductions related to the COVID-19 pandemic may exempt British Columbia employers from the obligation to provide employees with statutory termination notice or pay in lieu of notice.

The B.C. Employment Standards Act (“ESA”) sets out the minimum ...

On March 23, 2020, the British Columbia government passed two amendments to the B.C. Employment Standards Act, RSBC 1996, c. 113. There are now two new unpaid, job-protected leaves of absence for eligible B.C. employees: sick leave and COVID-19 related leave. Unfortunately, the changes do not provide much relief to B.C. employers. In particular, B.C.’s inflexible ...

There have been several developments across the country since our previous blog post (Keeping Cool: An Employer’s Guide to COVID-19 in the Workplace). On March 17, 2020, British Columbia declared a state of emergency. It is initially in effect for 14 days, but may be extended or rescinded as necessary. Other provincial governments across the country are taking similar ...

Employment agreements frequently contain saving provisions, also known as fail-safe provisions. These provisions are meant to ensure that if an employee’s employment agreement provides for less than the statutory minimums upon termination, the employee will receive the statutory minimums instead.

Employers should be wary of putting too much faith in saving provisions’ ability to uphold illegal termination clauses. The Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Rossman v. Canadian Solar Inc., 2019 ONCA 992 confirms that a saving provision will not fix an employment standards violation.

Background

Mr. Rossman’s employment agreement termination clause contained a saving provision that stated:

In the event the minimum statutory requirements as at the date of termination provide for any greater right or benefit than that provided in this agreement, such statutory requirements will replace the notice or payments in lieu of notice contemplated under this agreement.

However, the termination clause ended with the phrase “Benefits shall cease 4 weeks from the written notice.” This statement would violate the Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”) after Mr. Rossman completed five years of service. Canadian Solar Inc. terminated Mr. Rossman without cause just under two years after he signed his employment agreement. Mr. Rossman brought a wrongful dismissal claim. The lower court found that the termination clause was void and unenforceable, and awarded Mr. Rossman common law reasonable notice.

The Decision

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The court rejected Canadian Solar Inc.’s argument that the clause did not violate the ESA because it gave Mr. Rossman greater benefits than the statutory minimum if he was terminated in the first three years of his employment. The court held that it did not matter that the clause accorded with the ESA in certain circumstances. As the clause was offside of the ESA notice requirements at the outset, it was void and unenforceable. The court could not save the clause with the benefit of hindsight.

The court held that the termination clause was void and unenforceable because it was ambiguous. On termination, an employee is presumed to be entitled to common law notice of termination, unless the employee’s employment agreement clearly specifies some other period of notice. The parties’ intention to displace common law notice must be clearly expressed in the contract language used by the parties. When a termination clause could reasonably be interpreted in more than one way, courts choose the interpretation that gives the greater benefit to the employee.

In this case, the court found that the termination clause was ambiguous and the ambiguity was not erased by the saving provision. The initial 'ESA trumps' language and the concluding 'but nothing above 4 weeks' language were at odds. The court held that a saving provision cannot be used to rewrite a termination clause that attempts to contract out of employment standards legislation.

The court explained the policy rationale behind its decision: employees need to know the conditions of their employment with certainty and employers must have an incentive to comply with the ESA's minimum notice requirements. As such, employers cannot be permitted to draft provisions that take advantage of the fact that many employees are unaware of their legal rights.

Takeaway

Western employers can take the Ontario Court of Appeal’s comments regarding termination clauses with a grain of salt, as courts in Ontario tend to be stricter in their interpretation of termination clauses. However, the Rossman decision does follow Shore v. Ladner Downs, [1998] B.C.J. No. 1045 (B.C.C.A.), a seminal B.C. case that stands for the proposition that for a termination provision to be valid, it must be valid at all times. Ultimately, employers are always better off ensuring that their termination clauses are enforceable so as not to depend on saving provisions. Employers who have questions about the enforceability of termination clauses in their employment agreements may contact members of our Labour and Employment Group.

On January 1, 2020, changes to the Northwest Territories Employment Standards Act (the “Act”) and the Employment Standards Regulation (the “Regulation”) came into force. The substantive changes include new job-protected leaves of absence, additional restrictions on youth employment, and new protections for domestic workers. These amendments follow ...

In the spirit of the season, our December blog posts provide “legal gifts” for employers. Last week, we confirmed that occasional flexibility in start times does not create a contractual right to start work later. This week, our legal gift comes from the British Columbia Supreme Court decision of Belanger v. Tsetsaut Ventures Ltd., 2019 BCSC 560, where the Court ...