In the ever-changing landscape of Employment Law, three new positive decisions for employers came out in the same month.
Li v. Wayfair Canada ULC., 2025 ONSC 2959 (CanLII) and Jones v. Strides sparked particular interest given that the decisions seemed to be inconsistent with the Court’s previous decision in Dufault v. The Corporation of the Township of Ignace, 2024 ONSC 1029 (CanLII).
In Li v. Wayfair, Mr. Li was terminated after just 9 months of employment. On termination, his employer, Wayfair, only provided him with one (1) week notice and benefits continuation in accordance with his ESA minimum entitlements. Mr. Li heavily relied on the Dufault decision from last year, claiming that the termination clause in his employment agreement was unenforceable due to the use of “at any time” language. However, the court disagreed and found that relying specifically on one phrase (“at any time”) does not automatically render the clause enforceable. In its decision, the Court found that the termination clause, when read as a whole, uses specific and clear language limiting the employer’s obligations to ESA minimum entitlements by explicitly referencing the statutory requirements. Therefore, the termination clause was found to be enforceable with the court distinguishing it from the clause in Dufault.
Jones v. Strides was another July decision where the Court did not follow the decision in Dufault and explicitly found that the Dufault decision does not stand for the proposition that the words “at any time” on their own are improper in an employment contract.
The third decision in July involved a very unique set of circumstances. In Gent v. Askanda Business Services Ltd., 2025 BCSC 1278, a 30-year employee brought forward a wrongful dismissal claim and was only awarded six (6) months’ notice. The case centered around whether or not Gent intended on retiring from his employment. The Court relied on the employee’s testimony, which confirmed his intent and plans to retire at the age of 65, and found that although Mr. Gent had not formally communicated his retirement plans to his manager, his testimony in court clearly demonstrated a firm intention to retire at the age of 65. While the Court found a wrongful dismissal occurred, the employee’s notice award was limited to only six (6) months, i.e. until his 65th birthday. By comparison, had the employee not planned to retire, he likely would have received a 24-month award.
For employees, this case is a cautionary tale to avoid communicating retirement plans before getting proper legal advice.
For employers, it serves as a reminder of how unpredictable these cases can be. It is best practice to establish clear procedures for employees to formally communicate future retirement plans and manage those plans together with HR.
Key Points for Employers:
- Review and update your Employment Agreements on a regular basis to ensure compliance with new and evolving case law.
- Implement clear procedures for employees to formally communicate and confirm their future plans with the company. Keep clearly documented records of any communications from employees in this regard.
- Stay informed about new decisions and changing legislation.
Key Points for Employees:
- Do not sign a new Employment Agreement without first getting a proper legal review from an employment lawyer.
- Understand that future plans for employment, like retirement or resignation, could significantly impact your entitlement and seek legal advice before communicating these plans to your employer!
- Keep notes and clearly documented records of communications with your employer.
If you have any questions regarding employment law or termination, please do not hesitate to reach out to Rodney Employment Law at [email protected] or complete our contact form here.