1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

Fixed Term Contracts: Damages for “trouble and inconvenience”

In a recent decision[1], the Superior Court of Quebec held that the termination of a fixed term contract of employment constitutes a breach of contract which may allow for an award of damages for “troubles and inconveniences” suffered by the employee, in addition to damages for early termination.

The Plaintiff had been terminated without cause 15 months before the expiry of the term of his employment contract. The Court concluded that the unilateral termination of the Plaintiff’s fixed term contract was illegal and ordered the Employer to pay the Plaintiff an indemnity equivalent to the wages he should have received until the end of the contract.

The main interest of this case is the Plaintiff’s claim for $50,000 as damages for “troubles and inconveniences”, which required the Court to consider whether such damages could be compensated in the context of a fixed term contract of employment.

In its analysis, the Court first establishes that, while the termination of the Plaintiff was not based on serious grounds, it was not made in an abusive or humiliating fashion. However, the judge accepted that it had nonetheless caused severe stress and anxiety to the Plaintiff, as is almost always the case when a person is terminated.

The Court noted that according to a well-established jurisprudence[2], in the case of an indeterminate term contract, its unilateral termination by the employer is not, in itself, a civil fault, even if it prejudices the employee. Consequently, except when the termination is made in an abusive way, the compensation for troubles and inconveniences is not available to the employee. This rationale is grounded in the principle that either party to an indeterminate term contract of employment may terminate it by giving notice of its termination to the other party, as recognized under Section 2091 of the Civil Code of Quebec.

However, a fixed term contract is binding on the parties until its expiry and may only be unilaterally resiliated for a serious reason. Thus, the employer who, without a serious reason, resiliates the fixed term contract of an employee does not exercise a right, but rather breaches one of its contractual duties. If the evidence shows that this breach of contract caused troubles and inconveniences, such as stress or anxiety, the terminated employee could be compensated for these damages. In this matter, the Court awarded the Plaintiff $5,000 for troubles and inconveniences.

Thus, according to this decision, a distinction must be made between the unilateral resiliation of indeterminate and fixed term contracts with regards to the award of damages for non-pecuniary loss.

[1] Bouasse v. Gemme canadienne PA inc., 2016 QCCS 1263.

[2] 1994 CanLII 5837 (QC CA).

,

Fixed Term Contracts: Damages for “trouble and inconvenience”

The Duty to Provide Reasonable Notice of Termination Cuts Both Ways

It is a relatively little-known fact to non-lawyers that just as employers are required to provide employees with reasonable notice of termination, employees are likewise required to provide employers with reasonable notice of resignation.  A 2016 Ontario Superior Court of Justice case has recently confirmed same.

In the case of Gagnon & Associates Inc. v. Jesso et al., the company sought damages from employee Barry Jesso (“Jesso”) for having resigned his employment without notice.  Jesso had been employed by Gagnon & Associates Inc. (the “Company”) for 10 years and at the time of resignation was responsible for approximately 30% of the Company’s annual HVAC sales.  His colleague Patrice Comeau, also a defendant in the litigation, was responsible for a further 30% of the Company’s annual sales.  In 2006 Jesso and Comeau approached one of the Company’s competitors and entered into an agreement with it to open a satellite office.  It was at that point that they both provided the Company with their notices of resignation.

The court stated that the notice of resignation period required by an employee will be a function of the employee’s position with the employer and the time that it would reasonably take the employer to replace the employee or otherwise take steps to adjust to the loss of the employee.  The court then made a finding on the evidence that although Jesso was not a fiduciary employee, a reasonable notice of resignation period was 2 months given that: (i) Jesso was responsible for a significant percentage of the Company’s sales; (ii) the market for experienced HVAC salespeople was limited and it would likely take approximately 2 months to find a replacement; and (iii) Jesso knew that the Company’s other senior salesperson was resigning on the same day, thereby putting the Company in a very difficult position.

It is important to bear in mind that where an employee has signed a proper employment agreement which sets out a notice of resignation period, the employee will probably be bound by that contractual provision.  Likewise, for employees who work in jurisdictions that have employment standards legislation containing a notice of resignation provision, they may be bound by same.  Finally, there is a long line of separate case-law which confirms that fiduciary employees have obligations to provide reasonable notice of resignation to their employers.  That said, the Gagnon v. Jesso case is a helpful reminder that even when there is no contract, no legislation and no fiduciary relationship, an employee may still owe his or her employer a reasonable notice of resignation period.

The case of Gagnon & Associates Inc. v. Jesso et al. can be found here:  https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2016/2016onsc209/2016onsc209.html?autocompleteStr=gagnon%20%26%20associates&autocompletePos=3.

,

The Duty to Provide Reasonable Notice of Termination Cuts Both Ways

Court finds termination clause purporting to limit a 17-year employee’s termination notice to the 8 week statutory minimum to be “clear, express and unambiguous”

An Alberta court recently had the opportunity to consider the question of whether a termination clause was effective to take away an employee’s entitlement to pay in lieu of notice of termination in excess of the minimum set out in the Alberta Employment Standards Code (“Code”). The Plaintiff in this case was a 17 year employee who was terminated without cause. The employer paid her the equivalent of 8 weeks salary, relying on a termination clause in the employment agreement which purported to limit her termination notice to the amount required under the Code. Given her length of service, the employee was entitled to the maximum of 8 weeks.

The Plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal and applied for summary judgment. The sole issue for the summary judgment application was whether the termination clause barred the Plaintiff’s claim for damages beyond the 8 weeks. The clause in question stated:

In the event that [the employer] terminates your employment without cause, [the employer] will provide the notice or pay in lieu of notice required by the Alberta Employments Standard [sic] Code or other applicable legislation. You are not entitled to any other termination notice, pay in lieu of notice, or other benefits.

The Court considered the termination clause to be “clear, express and unambiguous” and stated that it was “difficult to think of wording that might make the employer’s intention any clearer”. The Court therefore dismissed the Plaintiff’s application, finding that the employer’s defence that the claim was barred by the termination clause had merit, and accordingly the matter should proceed to trial, absent an application by the employer for summary dismissal.

This decision provides helpful guidance to employers, although it is important to note that there is also a significant body of case law invalidating termination provisions. As recognized by the Court in this case, in order for an agreement to exclude an employee’s common law notice, it must be clear and unambiguous. Because section 3 of the Code preserves an employee’s common law rights, merely referring to the notice required under the Code has, in other cases, not been considered sufficient to limit an employee to the minimum notice requirements under the Code. Absent a reference to the specific termination notice sections of the Code (sections 56 and 57) or wording such as “the minimum requirements under the Code”, some decisions have found that similarly-worded termination clauses did not take away the employee’s common law right to reasonable notice, although each case needs to be decided on its individual facts.

This case emphasizes the importance of careful drafting of termination provisions, and shows that if done correctly, an employer can significantly reduce its liability on a termination without cause.

Stangenberg v Bellamy Software, 2016 ABQB 160

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2016/2016abqb160/2016abqb160.pdf

,

Court finds termination clause purporting to limit a 17-year employee’s termination notice to the 8 week statutory minimum to be “clear, express and unambiguous”

Watch Out: Ontario Ministry of Labour Inspection Blitzes/Initiatives Are Coming

The Ontario Ministry of Labour recently announced its 2016 and 2017 enforcement blitz and initiative schedule. In an effort to emphasize the importance of protecting workers’ rights and ensuring employer compliance with both the Occupational Health and Safety Act (the “OHSA”) and the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”), the Ministry has prepared a coordinated inspection blitz schedule under the Employment Standards Program and the Occupational Health and Safety Program. The blitzes commence this month and are set to continue until March 2017.

The Employment Standards inspection blitzes will focus on high-risk sectors where there is a history of ESA violations and/or where young workers, vulnerable workers and/or an increasing number of Ontarians are employed. This will include the following sectors: Construction, Food Services, Retail Trade, Professional Services, Services to Buildings and Dwellings, Other Amusement and Recreation Industries, and Personal Care Services.

The OHSA inspection blitzes will focus on sector-specific hazards with the aim of raising awareness and increasing compliance with the OHSA. The provincial OHSA Blitzes will target the Construction, Industrial and Mining Sectors with a focus on: Falls, New and Young Workers, Mobile Cranes and Material Hoisting, and Safe Material Tramming Underground.

In addition to province-wide blitzes, the Ministry will conduct local blitzes in predetermined regions throughout the province targeting specific sectors. For the ESA blitzes this will include the Child Day-Care Services, Manufacturing, Fitness Centres, Tow Truck Companies, and Small Manufacturing sectors; for the OHSA blitzes this will include the Industrial and Construction sectors.

The Ministry will report the results of its inspections shortly after they are completed and will track its findings to ensure improvements in compliance and fewer workplace injuries. The Ministry reports that since 2005, it has recovered over $144 million in wages and other money owed to employees through its inspections, claims and collections and, since 2008, has issued more than one million compliance orders for safety issues across all sectors.

Even if you are not in a targeted sector, be aware that in addition to the 2016/2017 inspection blitzes, the Ministry’s officers will continue to conduct their ongoing enforcement efforts, so they may still show up at your door. As such, all employers, and particularly those in sectors targeted by the 2016/2017 blitzes, should take steps to ensure that their workplaces are compliant with both the ESA and OHSA. The Ministry of Labour’s Inspection Blitzes and Initiatives Announcement and 2016-2017 Schedules can be found here.

,

Watch Out: Ontario Ministry of Labour Inspection Blitzes/Initiatives Are Coming

Early Termination of Fixed Term Contract Results in Employee Windfall (Or the Dangers of Dubious Drafting)

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently awarded an employee, whose fixed-term contract was terminated on a without cause basis twenty-three months into a five-year term, damages reflecting the balance of his remuneration under the Agreement.

The employee, John Howard, was employed in a management position pursuant to a five-year fixed-term Agreement, which provided for early termination in the event of his resignation, by the employer for cause, or by the employer without cause. If his employment was terminated without cause, the Agreement stated that “… any amounts paid to the Employee shall be in accordance with the Employment Standards Act of Ontario”.

Mr. Howard’s employment was terminated and he brought an action for breach of contract, seeking damages reflecting his remuneration for the balance of the contract, which equated to over three years’ of salary and benefits. In defence, his employer argued that any damages should be limited to the two weeks’ he was entitled to under the legislation.

Mr. Howard sought a motion for summary judgment which the motions judge granted, finding that the clause which provided for early without cause termination was unenforceable due to ambiguity. However, the motions judge did not award Mr. Howard the balance owing to him under his agreement, but rather, awarded him reasonable notice of termination at common law, subject to the duty to mitigate, all of which was to be determined at a mini trial. Mr. Howard appealed. Notably, there was no appeal of the motion judge’s determination that the termination clause in question was unenforceable.

Setting aside the decision of the motions judge on the issue of damages, the Court of Appeal confirmed the common law presumption that every employment contract includes an implied term that an employer must provide reasonable notice to an employee prior to termination of employment, but held that by virtue of choosing a fixed-term arrangement, the parties had “unambiguously ousted” this implied term in favour of a contractual obligation of a five year term.

According to the Court of Appeal, after the parties contracted out of the implied obligation for reasonable notice in this case, Mr. Howard was entitled to receive the balance of his remuneration under the agreement in the event of early termination because the contract did not otherwise specify a pre-determined notice period in the event of the same.

In other words, because the without cause termination clause was unenforceable, it could not operate to reduce Mr. Howard’s damages where reasonable notice was otherwise ousted. The Court rejected the employer’s arguments that this created an unfair windfall for Mr. Howard, as the employer was sophisticated, had drafted the agreement, had elected for a fixed term, and had attempted to limit its liability in the case of early without cause termination to legislative minimums. That this latter clause failed to meet the standards imposed by the courts was inconsequential: “If an employer does not use unequivocal, clear language and instead drafts an ambiguous or vague termination clause that is later found to be unenforceable, it cannot complain when it is held to the remaining terms of the contract”.

The Court then held, consistent with previous decisions regarding liquidated damages, that without a contractual requirement to mitigate his loss, Mr. Howard was under no obligation to do so. Where a contract stipulates the penalty for early termination there is no implied duty to mitigate–it matters not whether the penalty is stated expressly, or is by default the balance of the wages and benefits under the agreement. As a result, Mr. Howard was entitled to 3 years of compensation, with no obligation to mitigate.

This case is yet another example of the dangers of using fixed term contracts, and the importance of drafting clear, unambiguous termination provisions.

The Court’s decision can be found at Howard v. Benson Group Inc. (The Benson Group Inc.), 2016 ONCA 256 http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2016/2016ONCA0256.htm

Early Termination of Fixed Term Contract Results in Employee Windfall (Or the Dangers of Dubious Drafting)

UPDATE ON THE EXEMPTION FOR NON-RESIDENTS FROM PAYROLL WITHHOLDING

The Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) recently introduced a program to ease the administrative burden associated with Canadian withholding on the salary, wages, or other remuneration paid to non-resident employees performing their duties in Canada for a short period of time. These measures aim to remove certain ‘qualifying non-resident employers’ and ‘qualifying non-resident employees’ from the withholding requirements imposed under subsection 153(1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the “Tax Act”). Furthermore, these measures will alleviate the need for qualifying non-resident employees to apply for waivers from withholding (commonly known as regulation 102 waivers).

THE EXISTING EMPLOYEE WITHHOLDING REGIME AND NON-RESIDENTS OF CANADA

The Tax Act imposes employee withholding on non-residents to the extent they perform any employment duties in Canada regardless of whether these non-resident employees will ever have an ultimate tax liability under the Tax Act (for instance where an income tax treaty applies). The Tax Act also imposes penalties for failure to withhold amounts required even where no tax would ultimately be payable. Amounts which are withheld and remitted can only be recovered by the employee if they file a Canadian income tax return.

To deal with such situations where a treaty applies, the CRA allows for employees resident in a country with which Canada has a tax treaty to apply for a regulation 102 waiver which can be presented to the employer in order to waive the withholding requirements. However, the process for obtaining a regulation 102 waiver requires at least thirty days of lead time and is time consuming to complete, making the application impractical in many situations. Moreover, the CRA has imposed its own administrative policies over and above the requirements set out in most treaties, making regulation 102 waivers costly and burdensome to obtain.

THE NEW EXEMPTION

Recognizing that the existing system was impractical for many business travelers, an additional program was announced, allowing “qualifying nonresident employers” to forego Canadian tax withholding on amounts paid to “qualifying non-resident employees”.

A ‘qualifying non-resident employee’ is defined in the Proposed Amendments to mean an employee who (a) is, at that time, resident in a country with which Canada has a tax treaty, (b) not liable to tax under Part I of the Tax Act in respect of the payment because of that treaty, and (c) works in Canada for less than 45 days in the calendar year that includes that time or is present in Canada for less than 90 days in any 12–month period that includes that time.

A ‘qualifying non-resident employer’ is defined in the Proposed Amendments to mean an employer whom, (a) is resident in a country with which Canada has a tax treaty, (b) does not, in the relevant year, carry on business through a permanent establishment in Canada, and (c) is certified by the CRA by making an application in the prescribed form at least 30 days prior to the employee performing the services in Canada.

Because of this arbitrary restriction set out in the Proposed Amendments, there could still be a large number of business travelers who will either be required to apply for a regulation 102 waiver, or be subject to withholding tax and be required to file a return to obtain a refund of the tax pursuant to protections under one of Canada’s tax treaties.

RECORD KEEPING AND REPORTING FOR QUALIFYING NON-RESIDENT EMPLOYERS

It should be noted that even though this process removes the employer from the withholding and remitting requirements for qualifying non-resident employees, certain reporting obligations remain. Qualifying nonresident employers will be required to:

  1. determine whether the employees are resident in a country with which Canada has a tax treaty,
  2. track and record the number of days each employee is either working in Canada or is present in Canada and the income attributable to these days,
  3. complete and file the applicable Canadian income tax returns for the calendar years under certification, and
  4. prepare and file a T4 Summary and Information Return for the employees that are not excluded by proposed subsection 200(1.1) of the Regulations.

Proposed subsection 200(1.1) of the Regulations exempts T4 reporting for amounts that qualify under these new exemptions if the employer, after reasonable inquiry, has no reason to believe that the employee’s total amount of taxable income earned in Canada under Part I of the Act during the calendar year is more than $10,000.

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR NON-CANADIAN BUSINESSES

While these new exemptions do not cover every type of business traveler to Canada, they are very helpful for employers that periodically send employees to Canada for short periods of time. This is especially true in circumstances where business trips are unplanned or occur in a manner that does not allow sufficient time to obtain a regulation 102 waiver. For these non-resident employers, it will certainly be easier to comply with this new program, rather than rushing employees to obtain a regulation 102 waiver or withholding and remitting tax on the employees’ behalf. Once in the program, qualifying non-resident employers should continue to monitor employee travel and require employees that will be working in Canada for more than 45 days or present in Canada for more than 90 days to apply for regulation 102 waivers to ensure no withholding will be required.

We would be pleased to assist should you require assistance in making an application for the new program.

 – –Larry Nevsky, Associate, Dentons Canada LLP, [Toronto].(A modified version of this article originally appeared in CCH Tax Topics, number 2289, January 21, 2016).

,

UPDATE ON THE EXEMPTION FOR NON-RESIDENTS FROM PAYROLL WITHHOLDING

Terminating for Financial Reasons? Don’t Expect the Courts to Help You Out

Employers who undertake reductions in force due to financial difficulties should not count on employee notice periods being reduced as a result of the financial troubles.  This point was recently emphasized by the Ontario Court of Appeal in the decision of Michela v. St. Thomas of Villanova Catholic School.

Michela, Gomes and Carnovale were long-term teachers at St. Thomas of Villanova Catholic School, with 11, 13 and 8 years of service respectively.  All worked under a series of one-year contracts.  In May of 2013, the employer advised each of them in writing that they would not receive a contract renewal for the coming year because enrolment was expected to be lower.  Subsequently, in June of 2013 each of them was provided with a termination letter and advised that notice was not owed because they were employed pursuant to fixed-term contracts.

The claims were dealt with by summary judgment, and the motions judge determined that due to the succession of fixed-term contracts, the employees were really indefinite term employees and entitled to common law notice of termination.  However in determining that the reasonable notice period for each employee should be 6 months rather than the 12 months which was claimed, the judge made reference to the employer’s poor financial position.
In overturning the decision, the Court of Appeal made reference to the Bardal factors used to calculate reasonable notice at common law: the employee’s character of employment, length of service, age, and availability of similar employment having regard to experience, training and qualifications.  The Court found that the motions judge had mistakenly viewed “character of employment” through the lens of the employer rather than the employees, and stated that the financial position of the employer does not factor into the calculation of reasonable notice.  The court confirmed that while an employer’s financial position may be the reason for a termination without cause, the financial position of the employer does not justify a reduction in the notice period in bad times nor an increase when times are good.

For employers considering reductions in force during difficult times, it may be best to consider other options such as a temporary layoffs, ensuring that proper termination provisions are in place which provide only statutory minimums in the event of termination, or the provision of working notice.  While legal advice should be sought in order to ensure the best plan of action, it is clear at the very least that employers should not count on a reduced notice period due to a difficult financial position.

The decision in Michela v. St. Thomas of Villanova Catholic School can be read here:  http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2015/2015ONCA0801.htm.

Terminating for Financial Reasons? Don’t Expect the Courts to Help You Out

Employee Time Off to Vote in the Upcoming Federal Election

Canadians head for the polls in the federal election on Monday, October 19, 2015.  The Canada Elections Act provides that with the exception of certain employees in the transportation sector, every employee who is an elector is entitled to have three consecutive hours away from work during voting hours for the purpose of casting his or her vote. In most cases, this will not be an issue, since work schedules will already result in an employee having three consecutive hours off during voting hours.  If, however, an employee’s schedule at work is such that he or she does not already have three consecutive hours off to vote, the employer must, at a time chosen by the employer, allow each employee time off such that the employee has three consecutive hours free from work during voting hours.  Employers cannot make a deduction from the pay of an employee, or impose a penalty, for the time that the employer allows the employee to vote.

For example, if the voting hours in the riding are 9:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. and the employee usually works from 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., the hours of work will not allow for three consecutive hours for voting. To give the employee three consecutive hours to vote, the employer could allow the employee to arrive late (at 12:30 p.m.), let the employee leave early (at 6:30 p.m.), or give the employee three hours off at some point during the work day.  Notwithstanding the time off, the employee must still receive the full pay for the regular shift.

Polls are open for twelve hours on election day but voting hours vary across Canada. For more information, please visit: http://www.elections.ca/home.aspx.

Employee Time Off to Vote in the Upcoming Federal Election

Minimum Wage Increase Now In Effect in many Canadian Provinces

On October 1, 2015, the minimum wage in Alberta, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario and Saskatchewan has increased.

Province Current General Minimum Wage (as of October 1, 2015) Previous General Minimum Wage
     
Alberta $11.20/hour $10.20/hour
Manitoba $11.00/hour $10.70/hour
Newfoundland and Labrador $10.50/hour $10.25/hour
Ontario $11.25/hour $11.00/hour
Saskatchewan $10.50/hour $10.20/hour

 

Please note that there are different minimum wage requirements in many provinces that depend on the classification of the worker, such as liquor servers.

Employers are reminded to update their employment contracts and practices to ensure they reflect the new minimum wage

Minimum Wage Increase Now In Effect in many Canadian Provinces

Employee denied bonus payment on the basis of “somewhat draconian” termination provision

In the recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision, Kielb v National Money Mart Company[1], an employee was denied a bonus payment upon termination based on the provisions of the employment contract.  In the decision, Justice Akhtar confirmed that “the harshness of [a] provision does not make it invalid if both parties have agreed to it”.

The plaintiff, a lawyer named Jonathan Kielb, commenced employment with National Money Mart Company (“Money Mart”) in 2008. The employment contract that Mr. Kielb signed included a termination clause, as well as the following provision in respect of his bonus (the “Limitation Clause”):

Any bonus which may be paid is entirely at the discretion of the Company, does not accrue, and is only earned and payable on the date that it is provided to you by the Company. For example, if your employment is terminated, with or without cause, on the day before the day on which a bonus would otherwise have been paid, you hereby waive any claim to that bonus or any portion thereof. In the event that your employment is terminated without cause, and a bonus would ordinarily be paid after the expiration of the statutory notice period, you hereby waive any claim to that bonus or any portion thereof.

On April 21, 2010, Money Mart terminated Mr. Kielb’s employment on a without cause basis, and offered him 8 weeks of pay in lieu of notice (inclusive of the 2 weeks of statutory termination pay), in compliance with the termination clause of his employment contract.

With respect to the bonus, since Mr. Kielb was not an employee on the September 17, 2010 payment date, and the payment date was not within Mr. Kielb’s statutory notice period, Mr. Kielb did not receive any bonus payment in respect of the 2010 fiscal year. [2]

Mr. Kielb’s position was that the bonus was an integral part of his compensation, and therefore should be payable up to the last day worked and through the contractual notice period, despite the language in the Limitation Clause.  Mr. Kielb argued that because the bonus was an integral part of his compensation the Limitation Clause was unenforceable, because it was: contrary to public policy, inconsistently applied, and/or ambiguous, contradictory and illegal.

In considering Mr. Kielb’s arguments, Justice Akhtar came to the following conclusions:

  • Given Money Mart’s representations to Mr. Kielb at the time of hiring, the bonus did form an integral part of his compensation package. However, the Limitation Clause was not contrary to public policy and as such, it operated to restrict Mr. Kielb’s right to the bonus payment. Mr. Kielb was dismissed in April and since the bonus payment date did not fall within the 2-week statutory notice period, Mr. Kielb was not entitled to any bonus payment.
  • Additionally, while Money Mart’s treatment of Mr. Kielb’s bonus entitlement may have differed from its treatment of other terminated employees’ entitlements, Mr. Kielb was nevertheless ineligible for the bonus payment because of the terms of the Limitation Clause.
  • Lastly, the Limitation Clause was unambiguous. The language was clear that Mr. Kielb was only entitled to a bonus if the payment date fell within the statutory notice period, and since the payment date was well outside of this period, Money Mart was not required to make a bonus payment.

This case is a good example of how an employer can use clear and unambiguous language in an employment contract to restrict its liabilities upon termination, specifically with respect to bonus payments.  While Money Mart’s verbal representations to Mr. Kielb about its bonus program caused the bonus payment to be an integral part of his compensation package, Mr. Kielb accepted the position with full knowledge that on termination his entitlements would be restricted by the Limitation Clause, and was consequently bound by its terms.

[1] 2015 ONSC 3790.

[2] Had it been payable, the bonus would have amounted to 59.4% of his base salary (i.e. approximately $86,239.56).

Employee denied bonus payment on the basis of “somewhat draconian” termination provision