


Alberta Court Upholds “4-Week” Termination Clause
Alberta Court Upholds “4-Week” Termination Clause
In Lawton v Syndicated Services Inc.,[1] the Provincial Court of Alberta upheld a termination clause in an employment contract that limited the employee’s notice period to just four weeks.
Background
The employee, Mr. Lawton, was the Chief Operating Officer and General Manager of Syndicated Services Inc (“Syndicated”). At the time of hire in August 2018, Mr. Lawton and Syndicated had entered into an employment contract that included the following termination clause: “Termination of this contract requires 4 weeks notice.”
Syndicated’s business suffered significantly due to the economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, in April 2020, Syndicated terminated Mr. Lawton’s employment without cause and provided him with four weeks’ termination pay in lieu of notice in accordance with his contract.
However, Mr. Lawton commenced an action for wrongful dismissal against Syndicated, alleging that the termination clause was unenforceable because it was aimed at avoiding the Employment Standards Code (which provides for up to eight weeks of individual notice of termination after 10 years of service). Mr. Lawton sought $64,584 in damages as severance pay, $15,000 in damages as benefits, and $10,000 in enhanced damages.
The Court’s Decision
According to the court, the termination clause in Mr. Lawton’s employment contract was “clear and unambiguous”. The termination clause did not unlawfully contract-out of the Employment Standards Code because Mr. Lawton had only been employed by Syndicated for approximately 20 months, meaning his statutory notice entitlement would have been just one week at the time of termination.
In upholding the termination clause, the court also noted:
- The contract was the subject of negotiation between Mr. Lawton and Syndicated; and
- The contract did not violate the Employment Standards Code because, in Mr. Lawton’s case, it provided for notice in excess of the statutory minimum requirements at the time of termination.
In the words of the court: “parties are entitled to enter contracts and negotiate employment terms. So long as the terms are not to frustrate legislative mandate and they are negotiated freely and voluntarily, they ought to be enforced.”
Key Takeaways
The court’s decision in Lawton v Syndicated Services Inc. follows on the heels of a similar decision by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench – Bryant v Parkland School Division[2] – wherein a clause that allowed the employer to terminate employment upon “sixty (60) days or more written notice” was upheld.
These employer-friendly decisions demonstrate that the courts in Alberta – unlike those in certain other Canadian provinces – are willing to interpret termination clauses by giving effect to the plain and ordinary language used (as opposed to straining to create an ambiguity). Nevertheless, we still recommend that employers review their termination clauses to ensure that they are clear and unambiguous, account for the minimum statutory entitlements, and expressly exclude claims for common law reasonable notice.
[1] 2022 ABPC 3
[2] 2021 ABQB 391
by Kritika Sharma, Gordana Ivanovic and Paul Boshyk
A Cautionary Note
The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.
© McMillan LLP 2022
Insights (5 Posts)
Competition Bureau Challenges Alleged Drip Pricing by Cineplex
The Competition Bureau commenced a proceeding against Cineplex for allegedly engaging in misleading advertising in the form of "drip pricing".
The Present and Future of A.I. Regulation
Join us for a session with industry experts who will share valuable insights into the latest trends and developments in artificial intelligence with a particular focus on regulation.
Secured Lending in Canada: A Guide for U.S. Lenders
A guide to secured lending in Canada; summarizes regulatory matters, tax, security, insolvency and restructuring issues in Canada.
Don’t Wing It – Implications for Project Proponents under Canada’s Species at Risk Act
This bulletin discusses the application of the Species at Risk Act, a federal environmental statute whose potential impact on private parties is overlooked.
Bill 112: The Hazel McCallion Act, 2023 and Potential Impacts of the Proposed Dissolution of the Peel Region
On May 18, 2023, Ontario passed Bill 112 proposing the dissolution of Peel Region, and similar legislation could impact other regions in the near future.
Get updates delivered right to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time.