Category Archives: News

Employer’s bad faith conduct may invalidate termination clause in employment contract

Employer’s bad faith conduct may invalidate termination clause in employment contract

By Amanda Montague-Reinholdt

If your employment has been terminated without cause, one of the first questions an employment lawyer will ask you is whether you have a written employment contract. If you do, the employment lawyer will review it to determine if the contract sets out your entitlements when your employment is terminated without cause. Many employment contracts state that employees will only receive the minimum notice and severance entitlements under the Employment Standards Act (ESA). If that clause is properly drafted, it may deprive an employee of their right to a longer notice period under the common law. 

In a judgment rendered last year, the Ontario Superior Court identified a different basis for employees to argue that this type of contract provision cannot be applied to limit their entitlements. The Court held that an employer’s bad faith conduct can amount to a repudiation of the employment contract and invalidate the contract’s termination clause. If this judgment is followed in future cases, a termination clause that, on its face, complies with the law could still be invalidated, based on the employer’s conduct.

In Humphrey v Mene, the plaintiff had helped to create a new start-up company and was subsequently appointed as its Chief Operating Officer. She later signed an employment agreement that contained a termination clause limiting her rights to the minimum entitlements under the ESA. As a relatively short service employee, she was only entitled to two weeks’ notice under the ESA. However, the Court ruled that Mene could not rely on the termination clause in Ms. Humphrey’s employment contract.

First, the Court held that the employment agreement was void because Mene gave Ms. Humphrey no additional consideration for signing it. She was, under the law, already an employee before signing the contract, and received no additional compensation or benefit under the agreement. Therefore, the terms in that agreement were not valid or enforceable.

The Court went on to hold that, even if the employment agreement was valid, the termination clause still did not apply. The Court noted, in passing, that the termination clause did not expressly apply to the circumstances in which Ms. Humphrey was terminated (a constructive dismissal based on a toxic workplace). However, the main basis for the Court’s conclusion was that the employer’s overall conduct amounted to a repudiation of the employment agreement and therefore the employer could not rely on the provision limiting Ms. Humphrey’s entitlement when terminated without cause.

To justify this conclusion, the Court’s judgment recounts numerous examples of the employer’s reprehensible conduct, including:

  • After Ms. Humphrey requested a review of her salary, her employer immediately suspended her from her position, and informed her she would either be terminated or demoted.
  • The employer sent a company-wide message to employees strongly implying Ms. Humphrey had engaged in some form of wrongdoing.
  • The employer knowingly made a false claim of just cause to terminate Ms. Humphrey’s employment, and only withdrew the claim for just cause late in the litigation process.
  • Ms. Humphrey’s boss created a toxic working environment by continually swearing at, humiliating, and belittling her.

Ms. Humphrey was awarded significant damages as a result of the employer’s breach of her contract, including a notice period of 11 months, as well as aggravated and punitive damages.

This judgment has potential significance for many employees who are badly mistreated by their employers. The standard to be met to invalidate an employment contract is clearly very high; however, in cases where the employer engages in serious bad faith conduct, employees can avoid the application of a contract provision that harshly limits their entitlements on termination without cause. It remains to be seen whether other judges endorse this approach in future cases.

If you have experienced bad faith conduct, harassment, or mistreatment by your employer, and wish to review your employment contract and the circumstances of your employment, contact one of our experienced employment lawyers here.

[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]

Dayna Steinfeld to Present on Tips for Mediations, Informal Proceedings in Labour and Employment Law

Dayna Steinfeld to Present on Tips for Mediations, Informal Proceedings in Labour and Employment Law

On May 9, 2022, Dayna Steinfeld will be presenting on a panel hosted by the Manitoba Bar Association’s Alternative Dispute Resolution, Labour & Employment Law, and Legal Research sections. Dayna will discuss legal research and practice tips for mediations and informal proceedings in labour and employment law.

For more information or to register for this lunch-hour session, please visit the MBA website.

Raphaëlle Laframboise-Carignan to Present on Accommodation and Disability Benefits

On March 22, 2022, Raphaëlle Laframboise-Carignan will present as part of a speakers’ night series being held by Mood Disorders Ottawa. Raphaëlle will be discussing workplace accommodations, long-term disability (LTD) benefits, and other disability benefits available when a person cannot work due to injury or illness.

For more information on this upcoming presentation, please visit the event website.

RavenLaw Attends UOttawa Career Connections Events

During the week of March 14, 2022, RavenLaw represented the firm at the 2022 uOttawa Career Connections event, held virtually.

Morgan Rowe, Zachary Rodgers, Claire Michela, and Simcha Walfish participated in panels, roundtables, and meet and greet events with law students and particularly spoke about their work representing unions and employees. Thank you to the organizers for putting on this great event, and thank you to the uOttawa students for your engagement and enthusiasm!

If you’re a student looking for more information about the summer or articling experience at RavenLaw, please contact us at studentrecruitment@ravenlaw.com.

Raphaelle Laframboise-Carignan Presents on COVID-19 Employment Law and Policies

On December 21, 2021, Raphaëlle Laframboise-Carignan presented to l’Association des juristes d’expression française de l’Ontario (AJEFO) on employment laws and policies related to COVID-19. Raphaëlle discussed the effects of these types of policies on the workplace, accommodation issues, exemption requests, and the potential consequences where employees do not comply with COVID-19 policies.

Will new pay transparency rules help to eliminate the wage gap?

[RavenLaw gratefully acknowledges the contribution of this post by articling student Kundera Provost-Yombo]

In January 2021, the Government of Canada implemented amendments to the Employment Equity Regulations that imposed disclosure obligations to on federally regulated private sector workplaces. These new measures will make salaries publicly available, and help to identify wage gaps experienced by women, indigenous people, members of visible minorities, and people with disabilities. The key question is – will this increase in pay transparency lead to any meaningful change in the wage gap?

What is the Wage Gap?

There is overwhelming evidence that women, indigenous people, members of visible minorities, and people with disabilities earn less income than workers who don’t fall into these four categories. For instance, a study conducted by Statistics Canada found that in 2018, female workers aged 25 to 54 earned on average13.3% less per hour than their male counterparts, or $0.87 for every dollar earned by men.

This wage gap generally materializes in one of three ways:

  1. Women, indigenous people, members of visible minorities, and people with disabilities may be paid less than others for performing the exact same job.
  2. Women, indigenous people, members of visible minorities, and people with disabilities may be paid less for work of ‘equal value’—that is, work that requires substantially the same level of skills, effort, and responsibilities than work performed by others.
  3. Job classes traditionally dominated by women, indigenous people, members of visible minorities, and people with disabilities may be paid less than other job classes. For example, certain types of jobs traditionally performed by women (e.g. childcare) are systemically underpaid.  

What do the Employment Equity Regulations do about the wage gap?

The amendments to the Employment Equity Regulations that are now in force impose pay transparency in federally regulated private sector workplaces. Employee salaries will be publicly available, with added emphasis on the existing wage gaps experienced by women, indigenous people, members of visible minorities, and people with disabilities.

Before these amendments, federal private sector employers were already required to prepare employment equity reports each year, reporting information on representation data, employee occupational groups, employee salary ranges, and the number of employees hired, promoted, and terminated. 

This data was reported to the Minister of Labour, but now, under the new amendments, will also be made available to the public. The data will be published through aggregate statistics, based on occupational group and employment status. Through this aggregate data, wage gaps will be identified, for example, through the average difference in hourly wages between men and women working in an occupational group. No information that can identify individual employees will be included in the public data. 

Employers of federally regulated private sector workplaces will have to meet the disclosure obligations and include aggregated wage gap statistics in their annual employment equity reports by June 2022. The first production of aggregated wage gap data is expected to be published in winter 2023, through an online application currently being developed. 

Which employers must comply with the new Regulations?

The new pay transparency measures apply to employers of federally regulated private-sector workplaces. Federally regulated private-sector workplaces are defined in parts I, II, III, and IV of the Canada Labour Code, and include industries such as banks, transportation, telecommunications, postal services, and most federal Crown corporations. 

What do these new rules mean for employees?

The new amendments will allow workers in the federal private sector to better understand whether they are currently experiencing wage discrimination. The wage gap is perpetuated in part because it is hidden. As a result, the pay transparency measures adopted by the Government of Canada will raise awareness about the wage gaps in federal private sector workplaces.

Using this information, workers can better advocate to eliminate the wage gap. It is difficult for workers to compel their employers to close wage gaps if they are not aware that they are being underpaid. Pay transparency will enable workers and their advocates to access more detailed data to advance the fight towards pay equity. 

In theory, greater pay transparency may also encourage employers to proactively work towards pay equity in their workforces. Publicizing wage disparities may create public pressure and incentivize employers to address wage gaps within their workplaces.

Unfortunately, pay transparency alone does not necessarily lead to pay equity. It is unclear whether these new measures will meaningfully change existing wage gaps in federal private sector workplaces. It is, however, undoubtedly a step in the right direction, and will allow workers and their advocates to at least understand the scope of the problem.

[This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice, which cannot be given without an assessment of your individual circumstances.]

Congratulations to David Yazbeck on his new role at PIPSC!

As many of our friends and colleagues in the labour community may already know, David Yazbeck has left private practice at RavenLaw to work within the labour movement as the Director, National Labour Relations, at PIPSC. David has a long history representing PIPSC and its members, championing human rights and whistleblower protections in numerous precedent-setting cases on the union’s behalf. This is an exciting opportunity for David to continue to pursue his life-long commitment to workers’ rights, on behalf of an important voice for labour in this country.

David leaves private practice with a legacy of historic victories at all levels of court, and a demonstrated commitment to advancing social justice issues through important pro bono work. He has litigated important cases involving racism and anti-Black racism, and his commitment to the arts, and artists, led to a Supreme Court of Canada ruling ensuring artists could meaningfully participate in collective bargaining. We will miss David’s many contributions to RavenLaw, including his vast experience litigating complex issues on behalf of workers, most notably in the areas of human rights and pay equity. It goes without saying, however, that we will miss having him as a colleague even more.

While it is difficult to lose a founding member who has done so much for the firm, we know David will continue to play an important role in the labour movement, using his energy and talents to advance the interests of workers across Canada. We wish David all the best in this next step in his career and look forward to continuing to work alongside him in the future.