Publication
Mission impossible? Teresa Ribera’s mission letter and the future of EU merger review
Executive Vice President Vestager’s momentous tenure as Commissioner responsible for EU competition policy is nearing its end.
Author:
Canada | Publication | November 3, 2023
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently affirmed reasonable notice periods in excess of 24 months for two long-service employees.
Such lengthy notice periods are supposed to arise only in “exceptional circumstances.” Lynch v. Avaya Canada Corporation, 2023 ONCA 696 and Milwid v. IBM Canada Ltd., 2023 ONCA 702 highlight factors that might push a notice period beyond 24 months. Employers should consider the potential for such lengthy notice awards in assessing termination risks associated with long-service employees.
At common law, an employee is entitled to “reasonable notice of termination” unless an employment contract otherwise defines the notice owed. There is no exact formula for calculating the length of a notice period. It is meant to represent a reasonable period for the employee to find comparable employment. The traditional factors in the assessment (called the Bardal factors) are:
Many years ago, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that while there is no upper limit or cap on reasonable notice periods, only exceptional circumstances will support a notice period in excess of 24 months.1
In Lynch and Milwid, the Court of Appeal put a spotlight on what might be considered exceptional circumstances.
Lynch v Avaya Canada Corporation
Mr. Lynch, an engineer with 39 years’ service, was dismissed without notice and brought a wrongful dismissal claim. On summary judgment, the motion judge awarded a 30-month notice period after considering the Bardal factors as a whole. She did not identify which factors constituted exceptional circumstances.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal declined to interfere with this award. The Court of Appeal stated that a judge should specifically identify factors that constitute exceptional circumstances, but in this case it was possible to discern those factors:
Milwid v IBM Canada Ltd.
A managerial employee with 38 years’ service, was dismissed without notice and brought a wrongful dismissal claim. On summary judgment the motion judge awarded a 26-month notice period after considering the Bardal factors, and expressly noting:
The motion judge further awarded an extra month of notice in recognition of the circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which occurred at the time the employee was dismissed.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal noted there is nothing impermissible about relying on the Bardal factors along with other exceptional circumstances, to award a lengthy notice period. The Court of Appeal noted in particular that the employee’s skills were non-transferable because they related almost exclusively to the employer’s products.
In Lynch and Milwid we see the Ontario Court of Appeal declining to interfere with awards as high as 30 months, well in excess of the 24-month limit expected in most reasonable notice claims. In both cases the “exceptional” facts were essentially:
These facts are simply the extreme end of the Bardal factors. That they support notice periods of up to 30 months indicates exceptional circumstances might arise on common considerations. While long-service, specialized employees are a small fraction of the workforce, they are not rare. Employers should take note that the ceiling on reasonable notice periods for such employees may not be 24 months – it may be higher.
Given the prospect of a 30-month notice period, employers should revisit employment contracts to ensure every employee has an enforceable termination clause that limits entitlements upon termination. If long-service employees do not have such a termination clause in their contracts, a new one may be negotiated in exchange for valuable consideration.
Lowndes v. Summit Ford Sales Ltd., 2006 CanLII 14.
Publication
Executive Vice President Vestager’s momentous tenure as Commissioner responsible for EU competition policy is nearing its end.
Publication
On 10 October 2024, the UK government published its long awaited response (the Response) to its January 2024 consultation on “Designing a policy framework to enable investment in long duration electricity storage” (the Consultation).
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023