• 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
    • COVID-19 Resources
  • Blog
  • 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

  • Does My Original Contract Still Apply After 15 Years of Employment?
  • Mass Layoffs: Know the Law, Know your Rights
  • Severance pay in Ontario: What if I am fired for cause?
  • Should Companies update their Employment Contracts?
  • Non-competition Agreements Restricted under the Employment Standards Act

Tags

Blog Civil Litigation Constructive Dismissal Covid Employment Law Covid Mental Health Covid Wrongful Termination Employment Employment Contract 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 Law termination notice Termination rights 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

    [anr_nocaptcha g-recaptcha-response]

    Reviews

    Clecia Louzado
    Clecia Louzado
    2021-05-10
    Andrew is very professional, knowledgeable, fair and straightforward. I was grateful for his ability to outline all my options clearly and also his professionalism during a difficult time in his personal life. He did not let his personal life affect any time sensitive needs of my case, which didn’t go unnoticed. Highly recommend Andrew!
    Anton Koschany
    Anton Koschany
    2021-02-21
    Andrew Wray provided thorough analysis of my circumstances and provided sound advice. He is personable, knowledgeable and took the stress out of a stressful situation. In my professional career I have had occasion to work with many lawyers and I can easily say that Andrew meets and exceeds the bar (pardon the pun). Anton K.
    Lamrana Bah
    Lamrana Bah
    2021-02-02
    I had a very positive experience with the staff at Wray Legal LLP. Andrew Wray is a very brilliant bilingual lawyer. I was in search of a French Speaking lawyer and I came across him. He is a good listener, very professional with patience and passion for his job. I am grateful I met you. Thanks to you and your staff for your exceptional services 🙂
    Jamie Saunders
    Jamie Saunders
    2021-01-21
    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 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 kept 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! 🙂
    Mark Cuff
    Mark Cuff
    2020-12-19
    I am also highly recommending Wray Legal. Andrew represented me in a complicated employment matter - he was extremely responsive, and knowledgable in offering excellent legal advice. Andrew explained/outlined thoroughly what to expect and worked to make sure I was getting the very best outcome. I really liked how very realistic he was about my options and which would be the most beneficial to my specific situation. Wray Legal came highly recommended from friends and I can see why. Excellent experience
    Jennifer Morrison
    Jennifer Morrison
    2020-12-18
    Andrew and his team were there for me at a very difficult time. Andrew is always kind and compassionate, while understanding the job that needs to be done. I was very pleased with the outcome of my case. When it comes to a legal team, you want the best in your corner and Andrew is the best! I would highly recommend calling Andrew to see how his team can get the best settlement for you, I’m glad I did!
    Richard Goodman
    Richard Goodman
    2020-12-18
    Andrew helped me to resolve a complicated legal dispute with a former employer. Andrew was extremely professional is all of his dealings with me and opposing counsel. Andrew treated me as a partner, not just a client. It was an extremely positive experience and outcome, especially considering the difficult nature of the dispute. Thanks for all your help, Andrew!
    Tamara Roitman
    Tamara Roitman
    2020-12-11
    Andrew represented me through a workplace issue during a very low point in my life. From a legal standpoint he was extremely knowledgeable and professional. More than that, however, he was kind, gentle and understanding.  Having a lawyer that not only knew what he was doing, but who is also a good human being who went above and beyond to communicate and offer emotional support was the best possible thing both for the outcome of my case as well as for my mental health. I will always feel grateful to Andrew and his firm.
    © 2023 Wray Legal