“Don’t Worry, We All Know What That Clause Means” – Court Reaffirms The Importance of Carefully Drafting Fixed-Term Employment Agreements
Businesses and employees alike have been repeatedly reminded by their lawyers that employment contracts must be carefully and clearly drafted. The Ontario Superior Court recently pronounced itself on this issue in Norgren v. Plasma Power LLC.
In Norgren, the terminated plaintiff sought a ruling that his employment contract was for a 3-year, fixed-term, notwithstanding an early termination without cause from his employer. He argued that he was, therefore, entitled to be paid for the entire remaining balance of the contract upon termination. Contrary to the usual positions taken in fixed-term cases, the employer, in Norgren, argued that the employee was (only) entitled to common law notice.
The contract contained only one statement indicating that it might be for a fixed term: “[the agreement] will time out in 3 years and the goals will be reset.” With no other language or reasonable indicator that the contract was meant to expire after three years, the Court ruled that the above phrase was insufficient to denote a fixed-term contract.
In discussing what is required for a fixed-term employment agreement, the Court wrote that it must determine whether there is any ambiguity to the language relied upon. In this case, the term “and the goals will be reset” was unambiguous, just not in the way the plaintiff employee would have liked. Rather than stipulate a fixed-term, using language that evidenced some kind of surviving obligation demonstrated an intention to have an indefinite employment term. As a rule, to find that there is a fixed-term contract requires unequivocal and unambiguous language to that effect.
As a result, the Court awarded Norgren common law notice of termination; not the full contract value which he sought.
Takeaways for Employers
Fixed-term agreements continue to be scrutinized by the courts. Norgren demonstrates the importance of using unequivocal contract language, especially when establishing a fixed-term employment contract. A Court will not find that an employee’s term of employment is fixed unless a contract explicitly says as much and lacks indicators of a contrary intention.
Interestingly, the Court was silent on Ontario Regulation 288/01 to the Employment Standards Act, 2000 “Termination and Severance of Employment”. Section 2 of the Regulation stipulates that the termination without cause entitlements in the ESA are not applicable where a contract term has expired, unless the task for which the employee was hired lasts more than 12 months or is not yet completed in 12 months. It is likely that the Court did not consider the Regulation because the employee was, at least, entitled to common law rather than the statutory notice of termination. Nevertheless, employers should be aware of this important stipulation before considering a fixed-term employment agreement.
by Kyle Lambert and Martin Thompson
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
Insights (5 Posts)
Bidders can Structure Offers to Discourage the Use of Rights of First Refusal
A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision considers the duty of good faith and honest contractual performance in the context of an asset sale involving ROFRs.
Update for Ontario Employers: Proposed Changes Related to Remote Workers
Ontario employer's should note proposed amendments to the province's employment laws that would clarify remote employees' entitlements in mass terminations.
Trademark of Foreign Owner Invalidated on the Basis of Bad Faith
Awareness of a senior rights holder’s trademark and its prior use of such trademark in Canada is relevant to the assessment of bad faith.
Fanning the Flames of Liability: The Ontario Court of Appeal Considers Product Liability Issues in Burr v. Tecumseh Products of Canada Limited
The decision of the Court of Appeal in Burr v. Tecumseh Products of Canada Limited, 2023 ONCA 135 provides a helpful overview of product liability law.
A Look at Some Key Findings by the Alberta Securities Commission in Re Bison Acquisition Corp.
On December 21, 2021, a panel of the Alberta Securities Commission issued its written decision providing its reasons for the oral ruling it made on July 12, 2021 regarding applications brought by Bison Acquisition Corp. and Brookfield Infrastructure Corporation Exchange Limited Partnership, as well as Inter Pipeline Ltd. and Pembina Pipeline Corporation.
Get updates delivered right to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time.