• 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
Employment-Lawyer-wray-legal-

Termination during COVID can result in longer notice periods

December 7, 2021 Tags: Covid Employment Law, Employment Law, termination notice

In the early days of the COVID, it was suggested that, when evaluating wrongful and constructive dismissal claims in the context of the pandemic, the Courts would take into account the negative effects of COVID on the job market, when assessing whether employees have met their duty to mitigate. Similarly, it was suggested that the heightened difficulty in obtaining a job could result in the Courts awarding longer notice periods to employees terminated during the pandemic. See our previous article on this topic here.

While the development of case law regarding employment terminations during COVID is ongoing, the Superior Court of Ontario has recently provided further clarity on the subject. In Pavlov v. The New Zealand and Australian Lamb Company Limited (Pavlov) the Court held that the economic uncertainties caused by COVID should contribute to lengthening notice periods as they have a significant impact in the employee’s mitigation efforts and ability to find alternate employment.

When determining the correct notice period, Courts will generally take into consideration variety of factors, known as the Bardal Factors. The Bardal Factors are a non-exhaustive list of considerations that the Courts will take into account when assessing the appropriate notice period. These factors include, among others, the age of the employee, character of employment, length of service, and availability of similar employment. In Pavlov¸ the Court highlights, in reference to the COVID pandemic, that the availability of similar employment is a factor which may be affected by other economic factors beyond the control of the parties.

In Pavlov, the Court took into consideration that the economic effects of the pandemic were likely to be obstacles for the plaintiff’s efforts to obtain alternate employment. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that these obstacles would, or should, have been known to the employer at the time of dismissal. The latter consideration is of key importance as the Courts in Ontario have previously held, with respect to reasonable notice, that only the circumstances existing at the time of termination must be taken into account. This means that where an employee was terminated before the effects of the pandemic on the job market were known, employees would not be entitled to longer notice periods as such risks were unknown to the employer at the time. See our blog regarding pre-COVID terminations.

Given that the employee in Pavlov was terminated at a time where the employer would, or should, know of the negative economic effects cause by the pandemic, the Court awarded a longer notice period.

It must be noted that while the increase difficulty in finding alternate employment during COVID can result in longer notice periods, the availability of similar employment is only one of the factors taken into account by the Court. The plaintiff in Pavlov was awarded 10 months reasonable notice of termination or pay in lieu thereof. However, the Court does not specify how much the notice period was lengthened due to the difficulty in finding similar employment.

Generally, the Court will consider all of the Bardal Factors, as well as any other relevant factors, to determine reasonable notice. The assessment of notice will take into account the full context of the employment relationship.

In Pavlov, for example, in determining that the notice period should be 10 months, the Court took into account current economic conditions, but also the fact that the plaintiff’s position carried significant responsibility, authority, opportunity for growth and a high level of remuneration as well as the plaintiff’s age and experience. Considering all these factors, the Court determined that finding a similar position would be expected to take longer, particularly so during COVID, and awarded 10 months notice despite the plaintiff’s short service, being only 3 years of employment.

While the Court in Pavlov did not specify how much time was added to the plaintiff’s notice period to compensate for the increased difficulty in finding employment, the Provincial Court in British Columbia did so in its recent judgement in Snider v. Reotech Construction Ltd (Snider). In Snider, the Court determined, regarding the plaintiff, that as an employee with 2.4 years of service as a construction worker, the case law fixed the plaintiff’s notice period at 4 months. In addition, the Judge in Snider stated that:

“…I would add an additional two weeks based on the challenges posed by COVID-19 and the availability of similar employment, as contemplated by the Bardal factors.  The defendant terminated the claimant during a serious global pandemic.  He has retrained but still has not found another job.  In the circumstances, I find that four and a half months is the appropriate notice given the claimant’s inability to find alternate and available employment.”

While the Court in Snider determined that an additional 2 weeks of notice was sufficient to compensate for the effects of the pandemic on the job market, it does not mean that the amount of time which may be added to the notice period in all cases will be fixed at 2 weeks. Instead, Courts are likely to take the holistic approach that was employed by the Court in both Snider and Pavlov, and determine the appropriate notice period taking into account all Bardal Factors in the context of COVID.

It is important to understand how each aspect of the employment relationship can affect your rights at the time of termination. We often advise our clients regarding their notice entitlements in light of all relevant factors. You may contact us at any time for assistance.

 

 

 

 

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