As employment law continues to evolve, two recent court decisions serve as a learning experience for employers and employees alike. Together, they demonstrate that exceptional employment circumstances can lead to exceptional damages upon termination.  

In the first notable decision, Panchbhaya v. Vulsay Industries Ltd., 2025 ONSC 5370, a tenured employee was awarded a remarkably high notice period due to his unique circumstances as a 65-year-old lab manager with 40 years of service.  

Wrongful dismissal damages are intended to compensate employees for loss of employment and bridge them to re-employment. When determining these damages, Courts assess the age, tenure, position, and any personal challenges or barriers the employee will face in determining how much notice or pay in lieu to award an employee.  

In Panchbhaya, the court viewed a 65-year-old employee as nearing the end of his professional career and at a significant disadvantage when competing with younger applicants. The Plaintiff’s 40 years of service was considered exceptional, particularly given that this was the only job he ever held in Canada. Compounding these recognized challenges, the Plaintiff worked in a highly specialized scientific field, further limiting his re-employment prospects. In employment law, there is a “soft cap” of 24 months of common law notice, which the courts will only exceed in exceptional circumstances.  

The court found these factors met this threshold of exceptional circumstances and awarded the Plaintiff 26 months’ notice, emphasizing the importance of evaluating each case based on the employee’s unique situation.  

The second notable decision, Carroll v Oracle Canada (2025 ONSC 4889), expressly outlines the importance of complying with employment standards legislation and acting in good faith both during and after the termination. In this case, a 61-year-old executive whose compensation was largely composed of commission (base salary of $180,000, and commissions totalling $600,000) was terminated due to business restructuring. Aligned with the previous decision, the age, role, and salary of the Plaintiff justified a longer notice period as he was in a specialized field where comparable roles and salary were hard to secure.  

The true lesson in Carroll lies in the employer’s conduct following termination. Oracle failed to pay the Plaintiff his already earned commissions, despite commissions forming a central component of his compensation. The Court found that this failure was deliberately used as a bargaining tactic to pressure the Plaintiff, who was financially vulnerable due to the termination, to settle for significantly less than his legal entitlement. The court penalized such behaviour, awarding the Plaintiff an extra $57,000 in punitive damages.  

Key Takeaways:  

• For Employees: Reach out to a lawyer to better understand your entitlements and options and ensure that any package is fair and reasonable under your unique circumstances.  

• For Employers: Ask for legal guidance prior to terminating employees to ensure that terminations are handled with care, good faith, and firm understanding of your obligations.  

If you have any questions regarding employment law or termination, please do not hesitate to reach out to Rodney Employment Law at info@rodneyemploymentlaw.com or complete our contact form here.