Employee Entitlements on Dismissal Under Common Law

When an employer chooses to terminate a worker's employment, one the most important considerations is whether the termination is a wrongful dismissal or for just cause. Most terminations are wrongful dismissals, typically entitling the dismissed employee to both reasonable notice damages at common law and damages under the Ontario Employment Standards Act.

A dismissal for just cause occurs when an employee has fundamentally breached their employment contract. This is often established by demonstrating acts of dishonesty, gross insubordination, or a persistent neglect of their duty. When an employer can demonstrate that they have just cause for terminating an employee they are typically relieved from paying any reasonable notice or Employment Standards Act damages. Many employment cases before the courts turn on whether an employee was dismissed for just cause.

However, a recent case demonstrates that even when an employee is found to have been dismissed for cause at common law, they may still be entitled to damages. The case of Oosterbosch v. FAG Aerospace Inc. 2011 ONSC 1538 (Can LII) is interesting because the trial judge found that the employee's conduct allowed a dismissal for just cause but still awarded damages under the Employment Standards Act. The court examined the difference in definition between just cause for termination at common law, and "wilful misconduct, disobedience or wilful neglect of duty that is not trivial and has not been condoned by the employer", being the conduct that disentitles a dismissed employee to damages under the Employment Standards Act.

The trial judge in FAG Aerospace found that while the employer did have just cause to terminate employment, there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that the employee's behaviour was “wilful misconduct, disobedience or wilful neglect of duty” to disentitle him to damages under the Employment Standards Act. It was accepted at trial that the employee was often late and was a poor performer at work despite numerous coaching sessions, but the judge concluded that this behaviour was not wilful on the part of the employee, but occurred simply through carelessness.

There are few employment cases that draw such a fine distinction between the common law and Employment Standards Act but FAG Aerospace demonstrates that proving just cause for termination is not the only consideration an employer should have when letting an employee go without offering severance.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are temporary layoffs permitted?

Work at my business has slowed down quite a bit this year. I currently have 11 employees but there is not enough work to go around. I should be getting a set of new contracts that will keep everyone busy this spring, but I’d like to make some temporary layoffs in the meantime to avoid having to let anyone go for good. I’ve discussed this with business colleagues who told me that temporary layoffs are not permitted for non-unionized employees. What are my options?‍

The law applicable to temporary layoffs in Ontario can be confusing. The Employment Standards Act does allow temporary layoffs of up to 13 weeks in a 20 week period. In certain seasonal industries, such as construction, temporary layoffs over the winter months are fairly common. However, in other workplaces courts in Ontario have treated temporary layoffs as constructive dismissals and have ordered employers to provide termination and severance pay.

In recent years, some Ontario court decisions have allowed temporary layoffs provided employers comply with both the Employment Standards Act and the terms of the employee’s contract. Depending on the nature of the work, such layoffs may even be permitted when an employee is working with an unwritten contract. A temporary layoff is also more likely to be permitted if an employee remains entitled to benefits and can access Employment Insurance during their time off. During any such layoff it is important to inform the employee that the layoff is temporary and to provide them with a return to work date. Finally, a temporary layoff should not be used as a form of discipline to punish an employee for misconduct – that will most certainly result in a claim for constructive dismissal.

Are paid and unpaid internships illegal in Ontario?

I own a small events and promotions business. Every so often I get emails from students asking if they could volunteer to learn about the business. I’ve never hired a student because they’re inexperienced but I’m considering hiring one as an intern this summer. I don’t have the budget for a full time employee but I would be willing to pay them a modest stipend. I’ve heard both paid and unpaid internships are illegal in Ontario. Is this true?

In Ontario, the rules around internships are strict and in recent years some employers have been required to change their internship programs as a result. If someone is receiving on the job training from a business they are considered to be an employee of the business under Ontario law. As an employee they are entitled to a minimum wage under the Employment Standards Act so paying them a stipend that does not meet the minimum wage is against the law.

There are two exceptions to this general rule which recognize the educational value of internships. The first is internship programs approved by a college or university which are permitted.

The second exception is internships that meet criteria set by the Ministry of Labour. These requirements include that the intern is receiving valuable training, is not taking someone else’s job, and has not been promised a job after their training. The most important feature is the educational component: the primary purpose of internships is to teach valuable skills, not to provide cheap labour to businesses.

The safest way to ensure compliance with the law is to have an internship approved as part of a college or university program. Alternatively, you should design the internship ahead of time to focus it around training and skills development.

Can an employee be forced to forfeit their unvested shares on a termination without cause?

I was fired without cause. What happened to my company shares or stock options?

Your job was just terminated "without cause" and as if it's not bad enough that you just lost your job, you also find out that your shares in the company are no longer yours. Just like they never existed, any unvested shares are forfeited the day you're terminated. For some, this could mean hundreds of thousands of dollars in expected income gone.

So what does "vesting" mean and why is it important in this context? An unvested share simply means that the shareholder's rights to that share is subject to specific conditions. Companies will typically create vesting schedules for the shares they give their employees. The shares are provided to the employee subject to a share agreement which sets out the vesting schedule. That schedule will tell the employee when his/her shares will vest. Once the shares vests, the employee has an absolute right to these shares. They can be sold or kept at the discretion of the employee.

Vesting schedules are extremely useful and can be justified. The logic behind a vesting schedule holds that employees must earn shares that are available to them. The longevity of their employment should be correlated to their performance. If they perform well, their job will remain secure and their shares will vest with time. The vesting schedule dangles the possibility of added income in front of the employee to motivate good performance.

Employers should have the right to motivate their employees in this manner and an underserving employee should not be rewarded with income that was subject to him or her deserving it. Any employee who has justified a termination for cause, should not benefit from the vesting of unvested shares.

The dispute arises when the employee's performance is not at issue. The employee worked hard for the company and did nothing to jeopardise his or her rights to the unvested shares. We know that the employee can still be terminated without cause since no employer is handcuffed to their employees. The dilemma is whether or not that employee should have some right to his or her unvested shares.

Companies can squash any right the employee might have to unvested shares by contracting accordingly. Provisions in the share agreements or long term incentive plans, if they are sufficiently clear, can restrict the rights of the employee to unvested shares no matter if the employee is terminated for cause or without cause. Think of the following scenario:

Your employment is going extremely well. You've just received a promotion and your performance reviews are great. You're then terminated without cause. You're terminated in August. Before being terminated, you held 500 unvested shares in the company valued at $400.00 a share. Based on your vesting schedule, 50% of those shares were to vest in October that same year.

The shareholder's agreement holds that all unvested shares once terminated, notwithstanding cause, would be forfeited immediately. Remember you did nothing to merit your termination. Notwithstanding, your company has terminated you. Had they kept you for another two months, you would have had access to $100,000 worth of shares on top of your current income.

This does happen and, with the rise in e-commerce and proficiency in which new companies make public offerings, courts are now seeing a rise in cases where these types of employee shareholder agreements are in dispute.

The Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) has recently addressed a similar scenario in O'Reilly v. IMAX Corporation, 2019 ONCA 991. O'Reilly brought a wrongful termination claim alleging that he was not provided sufficient notice and that his unvested shares were unlawfully forfeited. On a summary judgement motion, O'Reilly was awarded 24 months' reasonable notice. The main issue before the ONCA was whether or not the motions judge was correct in awarding damages for shares that would have vested during the notice period.

The ONCA looked closely at the relevant provisions within the employer's long-term incentive plan and stock option grants. The following provision was highlighted:

(5) Termination of Employment Generally. In the event that the Participant’s employment with the Company terminates for any reason other than death, Disability or for Cause, the Options shall cease to vest, any unvested Options shall immediately be cancelled and revert back to the Company for no consideration and the Participant shall have no further right or interest therein. Any vested Options shall continue to be exercisable for a period of thirty (30) days following the date of such termination; … To the extent that any vested Options are not exercised within such period following termination of employment, such Options shall be cancelled and revert back to the Company for no consideration and the Participant shall have no further right or interest therein.

The Court set out to determine whether the words "terminates for any reason" included termination without cause. The ONCA emphasized the need for clarity in these types of provisions. It agreed with the motion judge "that the reference to terminates for any reason in the plans could not be presumed to refer to termination without cause."

O'Reilly was awarded the entirety of his shares throughout his notice period, valued at what they would have been had he sold them immediately upon vesting. O'Reilly had upwards of 30,000 shares valued between $20-$30 that would have vested during the 24 months' notice. The motion judge's decision on the unvested shares and the ONCA's subsequent dismissal made a difference of upwards of half a million dollars in the overall damages awarded to O'Reilly.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS?

FOR EMPLOYEES: Do not walk away from your unvested shares without consulting an employment Lawyer. You could be leaving significant entitlements on the table.

FOR EMPLOYERS: Any attempt to limit the common law entitlements of an employee should be clear and unequivocal. Do not assume that general language, meant to encompass all, is sufficient to address one specific scenario. It is best to identify the entitlement within the provision and address it accordingly. Contracts must be drafted with specific consideration to the employer, their employees and the market. Boilerplate contracts leave unintended openings to employees and may significantly hamper the economic status of a company when it attempts to restructure and terminate employees.

Sources:

O'Reilly v. IMAX Corporation, 2019 ONCA 991.

O’Reilly v. Imax Corporation, 2019 ONSC 342.

Veer v. Dover Corporation (Canada), 1999 CanLII 3008 (ON CA)

‍

Need an Employment Lawyer? Reach out today. You may be eligible for a no-obligation consultation.