• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Blog

Logo 1 Created with Sketch.

  • About
  • Our Lawyers
    • Andrew Wray
    • Juan Echavarria
    • Salman Rana
  • Expertise
    • Employment Law
    • Civil Litigation
  • Blog
  • COVID-19 Resources
  • Contact Us
  • Book a Consultation
Covid-Employment-Lawyers-Toronto-Wray-Legal-Find-Best-near-me

Should Companies update their Employment Contracts?

March 28, 2022 Tags: Covid Employment Law, Employment Law

Due to recent developments in the Courts, updates to the Employment Standards Act (the “ESA”), and workplace changes due to COVID-19, which have had a direct effect on the employment agreements of most Ontario employers, employers have increasingly sought to update their employment agreements with current employees as well as potential new hires.

Currently, we find that most employers are seeking to update their employment agreements to modify termination clauses, to ensure compliance with the ESA, to modify or remove restrictive covenants such as non-competition agreements, and to include policies related to COVID-19, such as vaccination policies.

One of the most recent significant developments arose due to government changes to the ESA, which caused the use of non-competition clauses in employment agreements to be ineffective in the vast majority of cases. As a result of the ESA changes, any non-competition provisions and agreements entered into between employees and employers will be voided if entered into on or after October 25, 2021. The new rules provide very limited exceptions, reserved for senior executive employees and for previous business owners retained as employees after the sale of a business. Because of this, employers are seeking to remove non-competition clauses from their agreements where necessary, modifying restrictive covenants into non-solicitation agreements, or seeking advise regarding whether specific employees meet the exemptions set out by the ESA. You can see our blog on these ESA changes and their effect here.

Additionally, recent case law developments concerning termination clauses in employment agreements have rendered the commonly used language of “for cause” termination provisions to become void. Previously, most employers would include a termination provision in their agreements which indicated that an employee could be terminated without notice, pay in lieu thereof, or severance, where the employer had “just cause”. In this context, “just cause” or “for cause”, meant that where an employer determined that an employee breached the terms of the employment in a substantial way, generally because of incompetence, insubordination, and/or severe misconduct, the employer could terminate the employee without notice or pay in lieu thereof.

However, the Ontario Court of Appeal, in Waksdale v. Swegon North America Inc., found that the terms “just cause” or “for cause” violated the minimum standards set out in the ESA. The Court in Waksdale held that the term “for cause” represented a lower standard than the “wilful misconduct” standard required by the ESA to terminate an employee without notice. As a result, any termination provision which indicated that the employer could terminate an employee without notice “for cause” became void, as it was now contrary to the ESA. The Court in Waksdale went further and determined that where a termination provision included language that was contrary to the ESA, all termination provisions in the agreement were voided, not only the impugned provision.

The Court’s finding in Waksdale had a significant impact on employment agreements. Termination clauses generally include two provisions, being (i) termination without notice, or “for cause”, and (ii) termination with notice, or “without cause”. The “without cause” provision is commonly included in employment agreements to determine/limit from the outset the amount of notice required for terminating an employee. For example, such clause may indicate that where an employee is terminated without cause, he or she will be entitled to no more than the minimum ESA standards. As long as the “without cause” provision provides an employee with at least the same notice of termination entitlements as the ESA, or more, they will generally be enforceable. Where a provision is not included to limit notice requirements, or it is voided by the Court, the employee is entitled to common law notice, which is generally greater than ESA notice.

As a result of the Court’s judgement in Waksdale, where an agreement contains a termination clause indicating that an employee can be terminated without notice “for cause”, the “without cause” provision will be voided as a result. This is so even where the “without cause” provision would be otherwise valid and enforceable, and even where the employer is not relying on the “for cause” provision. Consequently, given the very common use of “for cause” clauses for termination without notice, the “without cause” provisions of many, if not most, employment agreements are now unenforceable, and will not serve to limit notice requirements. Instead, many employers may be liable for the greater common law notice, even where they do not assert to have terminated an employee “for cause”.

Lastly, as was expected, the COVID pandemic has impacted workplaces in very significant ways, and this has been reflected in employment agreements as well. Most noticeably, most employers are now seeking to change their agreements to include vaccination policies and requirements for current and future employees. Generally speaking, employers are permitted to require that prospective employees provide proof of COVID vaccination in order to formalize an offer of employment. Such requirements must be compliant with the Human Rights Code. For example, any agreement requiring proof of vaccination must contemplate valid medical or religious exemptions. You can see our article on COVID vaccination policies here.

Due to general rules regarding contracts, including employment agreements, such as the requirement to provide “consideration”, meaning something of value such as money or a benefit, modifying the employment agreements of existing employees is a more complex undertaking. For example, in order to incorporate a vaccination policy, change the termination provisions of an agreement, or include a new restrictive covenant, in the contract of an existing employee, the employer would have to provide consideration in order to entered into what is essentially a new employment contract with the employee. Otherwise, the Court would not consider such agreement as valid, as continuation of employment has been deemed to not constitute valid consideration.

As lawyers with expertise in employment law, we often advise employees regarding their rights pursuant to their contracts and their enforceability. We also assist employers in drafting valid employment contracts for future potential employees in accordance with the most up to date case law and statutory obligations, as well as guide employers through the process of modifying the agreements of existing employees where required.

Employers and employees may contact us at any time regarding their employment contract questions and needs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Career Opportunity at Wray Legal
  • Am I entitled to termination pay if I am fired for cause?
  • Should Companies update their Employment Contracts?
  • Non-competition Agreements Restricted under the Employment Standards Act
  • Termination during COVID can result in longer notice periods

Tags

#EmploymentLaw Blog Civil Litigation Constructive Dismissal Covid Employment Law Covid Mental Health Covid Wrongful Termination Employment Employment Law Health and Safety Human Rights Juan Echavarria Just Cause Termination Limitation Period Long-Term Disability Benefits LTD Benefits LTD Insurance Benefits Mechanical Business News Resignation Sale of Business Severance Pay Stock Options termination notice Total Disability wrongful dismissal

Footer

Contact Us

181 University Avenue, Suite 2200 Toronto, Ontario Canada M5H 3M7

T 416-642-0460
F 416-363-7875

Contact Page LinkedIn
Book a Consultation






    Please note that contact through our website is for informational purpose only and does not create a lawyer-client relationship.

    * Required

    Reviews

    • I had the pleasure of working with Andrew & his team and I could not be more thankful for having them represent me during a very trying time. They were very knowledgeable and helped guide me thru the entire process. Going thru any legal issue can be very emotionally draining but knowing I had Andrew on my side def helped ease my anxiety. In the end, Andrew was able to win my dispute and I owe it all to his attention to detail and wealth of knowledge.

      Charlene De Silva

    • Robert Tarantino and his associates at Wray Legal handled my case against my former employer with compassion, ethically sound expert advice in plain language and professional courtesy during my termination process, a stressful event in any working person's life. I was presented with all potential courses of action during my initial meeting prior to making a decision to retain services, and was treated with respect and dignity every step of the way. Wray Legal was able to mediate an acceptable settlement without having to proceed with a formal human rights violation compliant at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. Thank you Robert, Andrew and Samantha.

      Ian G.

    • We contracted with Robert Tarantino of Wray Legal to do a respectful workplaces presentation to our organization. This was part of a follow up to a StressAssess.ca survey we had done with all of our staff. Robert’s presentation included: Introduction; Overview – Why ‘Respectful Workplaces’ is an Important Topic; What is a Respectful Workplace?; Occupational Health and Safety Act – workplace harassment; Human Rights Code – discrimination in employment; Fostering a Healthy and Respectful Workplace; and Q & A – Discussion. The presentation was extremely well done, very engaging and included excellent examples. Robert did an excellent job and I would highly recommend his services.

      Michael Roche

      CEO, Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers

    • I am grateful to have worked with Andrew Wray on a Third Party Claim that was filed against me. While we arrived at a very amicable conclusion, it was a rather complex route to get there. Andrew was extremely patient with both me and the other party. His legal advice was insightful and he always acted in an extremely professional manner. I asked a lot of questions regarding law and process and Andrew always took the time to ensure that I was comfortable with both. I really had the feeling that he was actually working for me and looking out for my best interests. I would have no reservations about contacting Andrew again for help, nor would I have any reservations in recommending him to a friend or colleague. Many thanks!!

      KM

    • Andrew Wray helped me settle a dispute with my past employer which lead to a healthy settlement. I would recommend Andrew to anyone looking for a professional and cost-effective litigator.

      A Google User

    • Andrew Wray came highly recommended and now I know why! Andrew took a personal and very supportive approach as he helped to guide me through a long and challenging labour hearing process that had already cost me too many sleepless nights. His demonstrated understanding of the complex legal and procedural issues gave me a tremendous confidence. Having never previously testified or given evidence, his advice on what I could expect on the stand was worth its weight in gold. I was kepy completely in the loop with regard to strategies and next steps, and was always made to feel like I was steering the ship - with Andrew as my formidable engine. Oh, and by the way, we won the case! :)

      Jamie S.

    © 2023 Wray Legal
    Site by Cameron Duncalfe
    Privacy Policy