Many employers play hardball with employees they terminate. They make a lowball offer for termination pay and drag employees into litigation, hoping the time and costs of litigation will deter employees from pursuing the full extent of their claims. While this approach can be effective, a recent decision addressed the risks of being unnecessarily aggressive, with a significant costs award in light of the hardball tactics.

In Janmohamed v. Dr. M. Zia Medicine Professional Corporation, 2022 ONSC 6561 (“Janmohamed“), the employee accepted the employer’s $15,000 offer to settle their wrongful dismissal dispute.  However, since the parties could not agree on costs, they asked the court to assess it. Justice Myers awarded $30,000 in legal costs against the employer, on the basis of what is “fair and reasonable” in the circumstances. This doubled the settlement the employer agreed to pay the employee!

This case serves as a warning to employers about the potential financial risks of playing hardball with employees for wrongful dismissal claims.

Justice Myers made it clear that employees terminated without cause are “entitled to pay in lieu of reasonable notice” and that employers should not feel entitled to strategically take an aggressive stance to wear down an employee. Notwithstanding finding that neither party held the moral high ground, he found that there is a noticeable power imbalance, and that employers should not be incentivized to lowball, forcing employees to sue to obtain what everyone knows is justly due.  The conclusion was that this power imbalance was highly unfair to the employee, and that it would be fundamentally unjust in this case to leave the plaintiff under water as a result of having to bring the employer to a position that the employer should have offered at the time it terminated the employee.

In another case, Chu v China Southern Airlines Company Limited, 2023 BCSC 21 (CanLII) (“Chu”), the employer was ordered to pay $100,000 in punitive damages and $50,000 in aggravated damages after the courts found that Chu was wrongfully dismissed. Mr. Chu was also awarded a 20-month notice period, resulting in an award of approximately $58,000 for lack of notice given. China Southern Airlines (CSA) had demoted Mr. Chu multiple times and placed him in roles for which he was unqualified. After he failed to perform up to the expected standards, he was dismissed at the age of 68. The court found that CSA dealt with the situation in a “duplicitous and unfair” manner and did not fulfill basic employer legal obligations – such as provide Mr. Chu with a record of employment (ROE).

More recently, in Kondaj v Crossbridge and Duka (“Kondaj”), the new building service provider refused to continue employment of Mr. Kondaj, an employee of its predecessor, and terminated him without cause; the employee sued both of them for wrongful dismissal damages and made an offer to settle the dispute at $27,000. The two employers did not dispute that the employee was entitled to common law notice, but neither accepted the offer to settle. Instead, they continued to argue over which should be liable for this common law liability, and dragged the employee through a hearing. Both employers were worse off. The employee eventually won a judgment of $78,925, with a cost award of $56,355. The cost to the liable employer was over $100,000 more than the $27,000 offer that could have been accepted, plus their own legal fees. Even the employer, whom the court held not liable for the termination pay, paid far more in legal fees than the offer, and did not receive any costs award in their favour.

While there may be some merit in starting off with a position that is more beneficial to the employer, holding on to it would rack up legal fees and the risk of being punished by a cost award. Instead, employers should consider handling termination situations in a fair and reasonable manner by making a reasonable offer and being open to compromise to resolve the dispute. By taking this more level approach, employers can minimize the risk of costly legal fees, putting the risk on the employee if they are the ones taking an unreasonable stance.

The cases of Janmohamed, Chu, and Kondaj serve as cautionary tales for employers about financial risks of taking an unreasonably hardline approach during the termination process.

If you consider that you are working full-time for this one “employer”, then in all likelihood, you are not an independent contractor. If this employer has fired you, and claims you are not entitled to notice of termination or any pay in lieu of notice, or offers a small amount in return for a release, the good news is that there is a lot you can do.

Rather than walk away empty-handed, understand your rights. Start by consulting an experienced employment lawyer, who can help you understand whether you are an employee or perhaps a dependent contractor, entitled to termination notice or termination pay in lieu of such notice. There is a good chance that you are entitled to significant termination pay.

Below is an overview of why you might be owed significant termination pay.

What the Law Says

Under common law, independent contractors are not entitled to notice of termination or pay in lieu of notice, unless their contract explicitly provides for it.

However, courts and tribunals have recognized that some individuals labelled as “independent contractors” are actually employees or dependent contractors, both of whom are generally entitled to notice of termination or pay in lieu under common law, unless a valid contractual clause provides otherwise.

Three Legal Categories of Workers

As explained in Keenan v. Canac Kitchens Ltd., 2015 ONSC 1055, (“Keenan”, affirmed by Ontario’s Court of Appeal, 2016 ONCA 79) at paragraph 17, “[e]mployment relationships exist on a continuum; with the employer/employee relationship, at one end of the continuum, and independent contractors at the other end. Between those two points, lies a third intermediate category of relationship, now termed dependant contractors.”

Employees are fully protected by and entitled to minimum entitlements on termination under employment standards legislation (“ESL”) and may be entitled to reasonable notice under the common law. Dependent contractors are contractors who are economically dependent on a single client. They are generally entitled to reasonable notice upon termination.  True independent contractors are self-employed, with multiple clients and significant control over their work. They are not entitled to termination notice unless specified in their contract.

As confirmed by Ontario’s Court of Appeal in McKee v. Reid’s Heritage Homes Ltd., 2009 ONCA 916, the first issue is whether a worker is an employee or contractor.  If the worker is a contractor, the court will then consider whether the worker is a dependent contractor or an independent contractor.

Employee v Contractor

In 671122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., 2001 SCC 59, the Supreme Court explained how to tell if someone is an employee or an independent contractor. The main question is whether the person is running their own business or working for someone else. Although there is no universal test, the following factors are usually considered:

• how much control the employer has over the worker’s activities,
• whether the worker uses their own equipment,
• if the worker hires help,
• how much financial risk the worker takes,
• how much responsibility the work has for investment and management, and
• what the opportunity the worker has for profit in the performance of their tasks.

Dependent v Independent Contractor

As examined in Keenan, the court will usually consider the following principles to determine if a worker is a dependent or independent contractor:

• Exclusivity of the relationship (do you work only for one company?).
• Degree of control the company has over your work.
• Ownership of tools or equipment (do you provide your own?).
• Opportunity for profit and risk of loss (can you make a profit or suffer a loss?)
• Ownership of the business. (Whose business is it?)

To be considered a dependent contractor, exclusivity does not have to be completely exclusive at all times. In affirming Keenan, the Court of Appeal explained that the court will look at the full history of the relationship, rather than a point in time, to decide whether the worker was economically dependent on the company, due to exclusivity or a high level of exclusivity. In Keenan, although the workers worked for the hirer’s competitor during the last two years of the relationship due to a slowdown in the hirer’s work, the court still found them to be dependent contractors, as more than 90% of their income came from the hirer and they worked exclusively for the hirer for more than 20 years.

In February 2025, the United States government started a trade war, announcing sweeping tariffs across various countries. While the initial tariffs were paused short term, several tariffs remain in place and tensions have escalated globally as countries, including Canada, have issued retaliatory measures. The magnitude of the tariffs and their uncertainty have already severely undermined the market with recession predictions looming, and caused chilling effects on the Canadian job market as businesses desperately try to adjust.

Many businesses are attempting to reduce expenses, including payroll, to stay afloat.

These are good-faith reasons to mitigate business losses when facing unexpected political and economic turmoil. However, if not handled properly, the businesses’ efforts to reduce their payroll may lead to wrongful termination claims and extra unexpected costs such as termination pay and legal expenses.

Many payroll reduction methods are prone to such risks, such as reducing employees’ compensation, temporarily laying them off, and terminating them without cause.

Reducing an employee’s compensation

An employer may try to reduce an employee’s compensation by (i) reducing their hours of work if they are paid an hourly rate, (ii) reducing agreed compensation, such as salary, and (iii) reducing discretionary compensation, such as bonus and incentive pay.

Suppose the employer reduces hours of work because it does not guarantee hours of work, or reduces or eliminates truly discretionary bonus or incentive pay; that may not trigger claims for constructive dismissal or unpaid wages in that case.

However, under many circumstances, it is implied that there is an expectation of minimum hours of work or bonus or incentive pay. For example, if an employer regularly asks an employee to come to work for a certain number of hours per day over a long period of time, the court may think that there is an oral agreement of how many hours the employee should work each day. Similarly, if an employer consistently pays out year-end bonuses or the incentive pay is purely based on objective criteria, the court may find that the bonus or incentive pay is not discretionary at all but an integral part of their employee’s compensation. In these situations, payroll reduction methods may be a breach of the employment contract, leading to claims for unpaid wages or even constructive dismissal, leading to a substantial amount of termination pay.

Temporary Layoff

Under most circumstances, employers do not have the right to layoff employees, unless explicitly stated in the employment contract.

Without a contractual right to layoff, a temporary layoff will lead to claims for constructive dismissal and termination pay. This means that even though the employer intends for a temporary layoff, the employee and the court may treat it as a permanent termination and ask the employer to make termination pay accordingly.

Furthermore, even if an employer has the right to lay off, there is a time limit under the applicable legislation on how long it can last, or it is deemed termination, and the employer will be liable for their employee’s termination entitlements. For example, under the Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”), in the non-unionized context, a temporary layoff can last no longer than 13 weeks within any 20 consecutive weeks or no longer than 35 weeks within any 52 consecutive weeks, if other conditions are met.

Termination without cause

In Canada, under most circumstances, employers are able to terminate their non-unionized employees without cause or eliminate positions due to economic hardship, but it will likely entitle employees to termination notice or pay in lieu of such notice.

Many employers believe they can rely on the termination terms of their employment contracts or the applicable employment standards legislation to determine how much termination pay they should pay. Unfortunately, that is usually not the case.  Employment standards legislation sets the minimum entitlements for employees.  However, employees often have greater rights under common law, especially regarding entitlements on termination of employment. The court will presume that employees are entitled to common law reasonable notice upon termination. This does not apply if there is a written contract with termination clauses that (i) clearly contract out that presumed entitlement, and (ii) the written clause is in compliance with the employment standards legislation. In many cases, termination clauses are not written properly so they will be unenforceable.

Especially in recent years, courts have been stringent in scrutinizing termination clauses, and have readily set any aside that do not meet the minimum standards.For example, if the termination clause simply says the employer can terminate the employee without cause at any time, which goes against the ESA, an Ontario tribunal may nullify the termination clause in accordance with the decision of Dufault v. The Corporation of the Township of Ignace, 2024 ONSC 1029. Without an enforceable termination clause, the employee will likely be entitled to more generous common law termination entitlements, which will probably lead to a wrongful dismissal claim.

Special risk due to trade wars

Another risk the employer should be aware of is the impact of the trade wars may make it longer for employees to secure reemployment.  The trade wars will likely negatively impact many industries or sectors of the job market, reducing the pool of available employment opportunities. Provided evidence is provided about the negative impact, the court may factor in the lack of available work to increase the otherwise applicable reasonable notice entitlement.   In Kraft v. Firepower Financial Corp., 2021 ONSC 4962, a Covid-era case, the court stated at paragraph 22 that “there is evidence that the pandemic impacted on the Plaintiff’s ability to secure new employment. In light of that evidence, he deserves to receive at least somewhat above the average notice period.”  Similar principles will likely be factored in for terminations occurring during the current economic situation, and lead to increases to the employer’s otherwise applicable liability for termination and severance pay.

As such, although reducing payroll to protect the business is a legitimate path, it is filled with landmines, especially during economic uncertainty. If not properly handled, employers may face unexpected legal disputes and termination pay, increased expenses, and even termination of employees whom the employer may want to recall. As such, employers should proceed cautiously and seek professional advice when necessary.

Losing your job can be a stressful and emotional experience. Whether you were terminated due to downsizing, performance issues, or other reasons, it is essential to understand your rights and options. If you have been let go, here are some key things you need to know before signing any documents and as you navigate this challenging situation. Most employers offer only the minimum, which is often about a quarter or even less of what you are owed. Why? Because employees sign without seeking legal advice.

Do I Have to Sign a Termination Letter Right Away?

When your employer informs you of your termination, they may ask you to sign a termination letter immediately or within seven days. You do not have to sign immediately or within any timeframe they provide. It is crucial to pause and get legal advice immediately.

Understanding Your Rights

Under Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”), you have certain rights, such as the minimum statutory notice of termination or pay in lieu of notice, severance pay, etc. However, absent an enforceable termination clause that limits your termination entitlement to the ESA minimum, you are entitled to common law reasonable notice, which is generally much more than the ESA minimum standards.

Consequences of Signing Severance Documents

Termination letters often include a “full and final release” to prevent terminated employees from pursuing further rights after they sign it. In addition to statutory or contractual entitlements, employers usually offer extra benefits in exchange for signing this full and final release, such as additional severance pay, extended benefits, outplacement services, or other forms of compensation.

By signing the release, you agree to receive the extra benefits and give up your right to sue for any additional claims related to your employment or termination. In Hall v. ESC Automation Inc., 2023 HRTO 1676, an employee’s application at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”) was dismissed because the employee had already voluntarily signed a full and final release. Therefore, they lost the right to submit the human rights claim to pursue extra entitlements.

Your Right to Seek Legal Advice

Your employer cannot force you to sign any termination documents right away. You have the right to seek advice from an independent lawyer before signing. If you are pressured or rushed into signing a severance agreement or final release without enough time to seek legal advice, you could challenge the validity of these documents. In Rubin v. Home Depot Canada Inc., 2012 ONSC 3053, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found the employer pressured the employee, suggesting that he would only receive termination package benefits if he signed the termination documents, making the employee believe he had no other option. As a result, the signed termination letter and release were unenforceable. The employee was awarded a 12-month reasonable notice period under common law, almost doubling the 28 weeks offered by the employer.

Understand Your Options

You are not obligated to sign any termination documents, especially when the termination package is less than what you are legally entitled to. By choosing not to sign the release, you can retain the right to pursue additional claims or entitlements under common law and start your negotiation for a more favourable package with your former employer.

If the severance package is far below your legal entitlement and the negotiation does not result in any improvements, you may have to resort to legal procedures. Under Ontario’s Limitations Act 2002, you must file a claim in court within a maximum of two years from the date of termination to avoid losing the right to sue. Further, if your termination is a result of discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code (“Code”), you can also consider filing a case with the HRTO within one year from the termination date.

Practical Steps

Here are some practical steps to take after being let go:

1. Engage Legal Counsel: Have a qualified lawyer review any severance documents. These are complex documents understood by lawyers. Even a few words misplaced can entitle you to payment four times the minimum ESA standards.
2. Document Everything: Keep records of conversations, emails, and any evidence of your termination. This documentation can be crucial if you decide to pursue legal proceedings.
3. Timelines Matter: Contacting a lawyer immediately is your best strategy to protect your rights. While you have two years to sue there are obligations to mitigate by finding a job. Ultimately remember the two-year limit under Ontario’s Limitations Act 2002, and the one-year limit under the Code. If you are considering a legal proceeding, do not miss the deadlines.

Being let go is never easy, but do not rush to sign anything, even if your employer asks you to sign the severance documents within a specific timeframe. Consult an employment lawyer to ensure you are treated fairly and receive the compensation you deserve. Signing a release usually forfeits your right to seek additional compensation or take legal proceedings against your former employer. Ensure you fully understand the implications before signing.

If you have been fired from your job, you may face difficulties in receiving the severance and termination pay you are entitled to. Some employers may pressure employees to accept much less than what they are owed. However, there are two significant trends that terminated employees should be aware of, as they may increase the amount of termination damages awarded in some cases. First, it has become easier for employees to prove exceptional circumstances to justify their entitlement beyond the usual 24-month limit. Also, courts are now awarding significant moral and punitive damages for employers’ bad-faith behaviours, encouraging employees to stand up against unfair treatment.

Are courts extending the limits of termination pay?

When an employee is entitled to common law reasonable notice, their entitlement is calculated by taking into account various factors known as the “Bardal Factors.” These factors help to determine an employee’s entitlement to common law notice and its length.

In Ontario, the maximum notice period for a terminated employee is usually 24 months, no matter how long an employee has been employed. This was reaffirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) in 2019 in Dawe v. The Equitable Life Insurance Company of Canada (2019). The employee in question was a senior vice president who had been working at Equitable Life for 37 years. At the time of his dismissal, he was 62 years old. At trial, the judge determined the reasonable notice period to be 30 months. However, the ONCA reduced the trial judge’s initial decision to 24 months, holding that only “exceptional circumstances” could justify a reasonable notice period exceeding 24 months. No guidance was provided for what might constitute “exceptional circumstances.”

In the years following, we started to see a trend toward recognizing “exceptional circumstances.”  In early 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“ONSC”) found “exceptional circumstances” in Milwid v. IBM Canada Ltd. (2023), and gave judgment to the employee based on a 26-month reasonable notice period. The exceptional circumstances included the employee’s age, long service with the company, the exclusivity of his employment, the specialized nature of his work and the overall character of his employment. Although the ONSC refused to consider COVID-19 as an exceptional circumstance, due to the timing of the employee’s termination coinciding with the pandemic, the employee was granted an additional month of notice, for a total of 27 months. This decision was upheld by the ONCA.

Late last year, the ONCA also upheld another ONSC decision where the employee was granted 30 months’ notice (Lynch v. Avaya Canada Corporation (2023).  In this case, the finding of “exceptional circumstances” was supported by the employee’s highly specialized skill set, the employee’s significant contributions, and the lack of comparable employment.

While these two cases do not explicitly define what qualifies as “exceptional circumstances,” they suggest that such circumstances may not necessarily fall outside the established Bardal Factors. Including pandemic-related factors and an employee’s contributions as supporting elements for “exceptional circumstances” implies a broader judicial interpretation. This trend appears to indicate growing flexibility among judges in exercising their discretion to identify and acknowledge unique situations that warrant a notice period exceeding the standard cap of 24 months.

This trend could signal a potentially more accessible pathway to establishing “exceptional circumstances” and securing extended notice periods for long-serving employees.

 

Are courts more and more generous when granting moral/punitive damages and costs?

Recently, judges appear to have less and less tolerance for employers who mistreat their employees.

Pre-termination Conduct

An employer’s pre-termination conduct may result in moral and/or punitive damages. In the case of Osmani v. Universal Structural Restorations Ltd. (2022), an employee was harassed and assaulted by his supervisor over a prolonged period, resulting in severe injuries. Furthermore, the employer produced a misleading investigation report and interfered with the employee’s ability to apply for WSIB. Upon the employee’s return to work, the employer assigned tasks that exceeded his physical capacity and placed him with the same supervisor.

The ONSC opined the employer’s abusive conduct was “malicious, oppressive and high-handed” and ordered the employer to pay moral damages of $75,000 plus punitive damages of $25,000, for a total of $100,000. Additionally, the court awarded an additional $50,000 for the employer’s violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code, because the abusive conduct was related to the prohibited grounds. For a more detailed discussion, please see our article, What Are the Standards that Employers Are Responsible for When It Comes to Harassment.

 

Bad-faith Termination

In Teljeur v. Aurora Hotel Group (2023), the ONSC granted moral damages for the employer’s bad faith during the course of termination. The employer failed to provide written notice of termination or pay in lieu of notice and refused to reimburse the employee’s out-of-pocket expenses, which are mandatory under the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000. Additionally, the employer induced the employee to resign and made a misrepresentation about the termination payment by assuring an 8-week severance, but in fact, only paid three weeks of salary. As a result, the ONSC awarded the employee $15,000 as moral damages.

In British Columbia, Chu v China Southern Airlines Company Limited (2023), the court granted the employee $150,000 moral and punitive damages, resulting from the employer’s aggressive “hardball” tactics during the course of termination.

Similarly, in Janmohamed v. Dr. M. Zia Medicine Professional Corporation (2022), when terminating the employee, the employer failed to provide a severance package aligned with the employee’s entitlement, resulting in the lawsuit. The employer was ordered to pay $30,000 in legal costs, twice the amount the employer had previously agreed to pay as settlement. In its reasoning, the court states, “Employers should not be incentivized to low-ball and then force a plaintiff to sue to obtain what everyone knows is justly due. Costs and delay are horrible risks to a plaintiff who finds herself sitting at home having to spend thousands of dollars, while unemployed and vulnerable, to chase money that is obviously due from a well-funded employer.”

 

Post-termination Conduct

An employer’s bad-faith behaviour after the termination may also justify awarding significant legal costs to the employee during litigation. In Giacomodonato v. PearTree Securities Inc. (2023), the employee was fired from his position as President and Co-head of Banking after just over a year. The employee sued for wrongful dismissal. During the litigation, the employer counterclaimed for breach of non-compete, claiming $1,599,000 in damages and $1 million in punitive damages from the employee, but then abandoned the counterclaim. The employer also delayed the document disclosure and failed to pay the employee money that was admitted to being owed after termination. The parties went through a 10-day trial.

The court found that the employer’s counterclaim was clearly meritless, and that it was a suitable case to award costs to discourage frivolous and strategic claims. Employers who owe money to employees should be discouraged from engaging in tactical litigation that is intended to discourage employees from pursuing their rights and entitlements. The court also found it was an appropriate case to award costs to sanction inappropriate behaviour by the employer in its conduct of delaying the proceeding.

As a result, the employee was awarded $830,761.75 in legal costs, in addition to the award of wrongful dismissal damages of $718,103.05.

Conclusion

The increasing willingness to extend reasonable notice limits and award moral/punitive damages signals a movement toward better employee protection. The lower threshold to establish “exceptional circumstances” for extended notice periods shows judges may be more willing to see the uniqueness in employee situations. There is also less tolerance for workplace abuse, such as bullying, harassment, and violence leading up to termination. Courts may also compensate employees for their employers’ bad faith behaviour during or after termination by awarding moral/punitive damages or significant legal costs. These developments signify a changing legal environment that encourages employees to assert their rights confidently and seek justice without apprehension.

As an employee, it is important to understand how your contractual benefits work in wrongful termination cases. Recent developments in Canadian employment law have brought attention to this issue, and it can have significant financial consequences for employees, especially those in executive positions. In one case, the court awarded an employee a bonus of over $1 million under a long-term incentive plan. In another case, the court granted the employee travel privileges valued over $1.8 million. If you are not aware of your entitlements, you could be leaving a lot of money on the table during negotiations if your employer has not structured your severance package correctly.

What Counts as Contractual Benefits?

Contractual benefits generally include the financial payments and non-monetary benefits provided to an employee on top of their base salary. For executives, contractual benefits often include short-term bonuses, long-term incentive plans (“LTIPs”), and other benefits such as stock options or RSUs. In many wrongful dismissal cases, employees often wonder if their bonuses should be paid out as part of severance package calculations. The answer to that is often yes.

In O’Reilly v. IMAX Corporation, 2019 ONCA 991 (“O’Reilly”), the Ontario Court of Appeal stated that contractual benefits include “pension benefits, bonuses, stock options, or other incentives.”

Sometimes, contractual benefits may include privileges like a company car, a business-paid cellphone, and, at the highest level, access to private travel by rented or owned jet. For example, in Ruel v. Air Canada, 2022 ONSC 1779 (“Ruel”), the Ontario Superior Court confirmed that the flight passes or travel privileges of the plaintiff, who was an executive of Air Canada, would fall with the rubric of “other incentives.”

Legal Framework

In the landmark case of Matthews v. Ocean Nutrition Canada Ltd., 2020 SCC 26 (“Matthews”), the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) affirmed a pivotal doctrine: in the event of an employee’s termination without just cause, that employee is entitled to compensation equivalent to what they would have earned during the notice period, including contractual benefits, unless there is language unambiguously excluding that entitlement.

For employees to claim these contractual benefits during the reasonable notice period, two prerequisites need to be considered under the Matthews framework:

1. Would the employee have been entitled to contractual benefits as part of their compensation during the reasonable notice period?

The SCC confirmed the first arm of the test set out in Paquette v. TeraGo Networks Inc., 2016 ONCA 618 (“Paquette”), with some modifications. It agreed with the Ontario Court of Appeal that “courts should examine whether, but for the termination, the employee would have been entitled to the bonus during the reasonable notice period.”

In favour of the employee, the SCC found that the “integral” test in Paquette is not required in every situation, especially when the benefits are not discretionary. For instance, if the realization event of an LTIP occurs during the reasonable notice period, the LTIP payment is assumed “integral” to his compensation because it is not based on the employer’s discretion.

Courts should only assess whether the benefits are “an integral part” of the employee’s overall compensation in cases where they are discretionary, similar to Paquette.

In other words, if the realization event, such as the maturity date, falls within the reasonable notice period, an employee can say that satisfies the first arm of the test.

2. If yes, do the terms of the employment contract or incentive plan unambiguously take away or limit that right?

The SCC confirmed the second arm of the Paquette test. That is, whether the terms of the employment contract or incentive plan clearly limit or remove that common law right. Courts always interpret the terms in favour of employees.

The SCC noted that only using the terms such as “full-time” or “active” does not remove an employee’s common law right to damages for loss of bonus/incentives, because the employment contract is not considered “terminated” for calculating wrongful dismissal damages until after the reasonable notice period. If the employee had received adequate notice, they would have been actively employed full-time during the reasonable notice period. As such, even if the clause explicitly refers to an “unlawful termination,” it still will not clearly and unambiguously affect the employee’s common law entitlement.

Further, in O’Reilly, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the simple term “termination for any reason” does not unambiguously take away the employee’s entitlement to contractual benefits upon wrongful dismissal. Similarly, simple language like “termination with or without cause” does not exclude an employee’s entitlement to benefits.

In other words, “unambiguity” means that the exclusion or limiting clauses must be very detailed to clearly cover every circumstance that may lead to the end of an employment relationship. Employees should receive all contractual benefits absent such an unambiguous exclusion clause.

Stock Options and Restricted Stock Units

When it comes to stock options or Restricted Stock Units (“RSUs”), things can be more complex since the concepts of “granting” “vesting”, and “exercising” can be confusing to employees.

When employees are granted either stock options or RSUs, it does not mean they obtain ownership immediately of any shares or cash in lieu. Employees do not own either until they are vested. Typically, they vest in tranches over a period of time, such as 25% per year over four years.  Once stock options are vested, an employee has the right to “exercise” the vested options by purchasing shares at a pre-determined price (of great value if the business is doing well and the stock price is rising).  In contrast, once an RSU is vested, the employee is usually paid out in shares, without having to purchase them, or provided with a cash amount pegged to the price of shares, depending on the RSU plan’s terms.

For employees fighting wrongful dismissal cases involving stock options or RSUs, the key is examining the language used in the plans. Specifically, they need to see if the exclusion clause unambiguously restricts or eliminates the stock options or the RSUs from being vested during the reasonable notice period. If it does not, the employee likely has the right to continue the vesting process even after termination.

Conclusion

Employees are generally entitled to nondiscretionary contractual benefits during the common law notice period, unless their employment contracts or bonus/incentive plans clearly and unambiguously limit or remove the entitlement.

The intricate legal interplay between wrongful dismissal cases and contractual benefits, like bonuses, incentives, stock options, and RSUs, underscores the necessity of understanding how courts have looked at employees’ termination entitlements and the importance of carefully examining the contractual language. In navigating the complexities of contractual benefits, employment documents and termination packages, employees are strongly advised to engage legal counsel to ensure their rights and entitlements are safeguarded.

It is crucial for businesses to navigate the dynamic landscape of employment law to stay ahead in 2024. The past year has brought significant shifts, prompting employers to re-evaluate their practices and policies.

In this article, we delve into some key developments that emerged in 2023 and carry implications for the year ahead. As we explore these legal developments, it becomes evident that proactively addressing issues such as termination tactics, employment agreements, and workplace safety is paramount for maintaining a harmonious workplace environment and reducing the risks of non-compliance, which can be costly for employers. In the evolving landscape of employment law, staying up with these developments is not just advisable – it is essential.

 

Employment Development #1: Evolving Job Roles May Void Employment Contracts

As businesses change, employee roles can shift, invalidating original employment contracts and surprising employers with increased termination entitlements. In Celestini v. Shoplogix Inc., 2023 ONCA 131, the employee’s role change led to the court granting extended notice upon termination despite a contract stipulating otherwise.

The Ontario Court of Appeal revisited the doctrine of “changed substratum.” The Court found the employment contract void due to substantial changes in the employee’s duties, showing the importance for employers to promptly update contracts when assigning new responsibilities to avoid unexpected and costly terminations. Hum Law explored this development in detail.

 

Employment Development #2: Contractor’s Duty to Mitigate and Employer’s Risk in Fixed-Term Contracts

In Monterosso v. Metro Freightliner Hamilton Inc., 2023 ONCA 413, the absence of a clear termination clause in a fixed-term contract led to substantial damages awarded to the contractor. Although the ruling reinforced the expectation that contractors have a duty to mitigate damages upon early termination (as opposed to employees, who do not have the duty of mitigation in the context of early termination of fixed-term employment), the onus remains on the employer to prove the contractor’s failure in mitigation.

Additionally, this case alerts employers that the misclassification of workers as independent contractors can lead to financial repercussions, including tax obligations, EI premiums, and even severance pay, placing a significant burden on employers. Employers should also bear in mind that inadvertent extensions beyond the contract’s expiry date can convert the arrangement to indefinite-term employment. For more details, please click here.

 

Employment Development #3: A Case in BC Reveals the Risk of Playing Hardball

Poor tactics in dealing with termination can lead to surprisingly high damages, legal costs, or both.

The case of Chu v China Southern Airlines Company Limited, 2023 BCSC 21 highlights the perils of being aggressive when terminating an employee. In this particular case, the employer’s wrongful dismissal resulted in a $150,000 award of moral and punitive damages. The court found that the employer handled the termination in a deceitful and unjust manner, and had failed to fulfill some of their basic legal obligations as an employer, such as providing the employee with a record of employment (ROE).

This case echoes a 2022 Ontario case (Janmohamed v. Dr. M. Zia Medicine Professional Corporation, 2022 ONSC 6561), where the court awarded $30,000 in legal costs against the employer, on the basis of what is “fair and reasonable” in the circumstances, doubling the settlement the employer agreed to pay.

Taking a fair and reasonable approach, making sensible offers, and complying with employment laws can help minimize legal risks and costs for employers. For more details, please click here.

 

Employment Development #4: Alberta Recognized the Independent Tort of Harassment

The 2023 case, Alberta Health Services v Johnston, 2023 ABKB 209, marked a significant legal milestone as the Alberta Court of King’s Bench recognized the independent tort of harassment. Defined by repeated unwelcome behaviours causing harm and emotional distress, this recognition empowers Alberta employees to pursue claims against employers for workplace harassment.

Although its specific implications on Ontario cases remain uncertain, employers in Ontario should remain vigilant. Employers should heed this ruling as a call to promptly investigate and respond to harassment complaints. A robust and timely investigation can serve as a crucial defence against claims of this nature. For a more detailed article about employer obligations to deal with workplace harassment, please click here.

Tips on workplace harassment investigation and mediation can also be found here.

 

Employment Development #5: Supreme Court of Canada Affirms Ontario Construction Owners as “Employers” under OHSA

In R. v. Greater Sudbury (City), 2023 SCC 28, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) upheld the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision that “owners” of construction projects can be deemed “employers” under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”). This means project owners can now be held accountable for OHSA violations by their contractors, albeit with a due diligence defence.

The case involved the City of Greater Sudbury, acting as the project’s owner while employing a general contractor. Despite the absence of direct involvement in construction activities by the City, the SCC deemed the City an “employer” under OHSA, emphasizing OHSA’s intent to allocate safety responsibilities among various workplace entities.

This ruling expands liability for project owners but underscores the due diligence defence available to employers under OHSA. To fulfill the duty of due diligence, construction owners must prioritize rigorous adherence to safety measures and collaborative efforts with workers to mitigate accidents.

 

Employment Development #6: Some Ontario Employers are Required to Provide Naloxone Kits under OHSA

Starting June 1, 2023, some Ontario employers must provide naloxone kits in workplaces, as mandated by the OHSA. This measure addresses the risk of opioid overdoses at work. Specific requirements outlined in Regulation 559/22: Naloxone Kits include storing kits according to manufacturer instructions, using hard cases, and promptly replacing single-use contents.

The Ministry of Labour also provided guidance on compliance, emphasizing the exclusion of risks beyond the workplace or from non-employees. Indicators for opioid risk include worker disclosures, previous incidents, or safety committee advice. The guidance advises on storage, disposal, required kit contents, and staff training, emphasizing comprehensive workplace coverage.

 

Employment Development #7: Tax Implications in Employment Dispute Settlements

Employment dispute settlements can carry unexpected tax implications, especially concerning general damages. In 2023, the changes in mandatory disclosure rules (Bill C-47) have triggered concerns among employment lawyers about reporting such settlements to the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”).

Usually, terminated employees claim different types of damages: income loss compensation (taxable) and non-monetary loss compensation (not taxable). To safeguard against CRA disputes, including a tax indemnity clause in settlements was common advice. However, the expanded duty of mandatory disclosure under Bill C-47 could mean even these clauses need to be reported under certain circumstances.

Failure to report can lead to penalties. While the CRA clarified that typical tax indemnities might not need reporting, excessive general damages could still raise flags. Employers must now be cautious and seek legal advice to craft reasonable settlements that will not attract unexpected tax liabilities. For more details, please click here.

 

Employment Development #8: Changes to Canada Labour Code (“CLC”)

Changes that Came into Force in 2023:

• Employment Statements: Federally regulated employers must provide existing employees with a statement of employment conditions within 90 days post-July 9, 2023. New employees should receive this statement within the initial 30 days of employment. Employers must retain these statements for 36 months post-employment.
• Ministry of Labour Materials: Federally regulated employers are obligated to provide their employees with Ministry-made materials regarding their rights under the CLC. These materials must be provided to existing staff within 90 days and to new hires within 30 days of their start date. The materials must be prominently displayed. Terminated employees should receive termination-related materials on their last day. This requirement is similar to Ontario employers’ obligation to provide Employment Standards Act posters.
• Reimbursement of Work Expenses: Effective from July 9, 2023, federally regulated employers are mandated to reimburse reasonable out-of-pocket work expenses within 30 days of employees submitting their claims, unless a different timeline is agreed upon in writing or through a collective agreement.
• Provision of Menstrual Products: As of December 15, 2023, federally regulated employers must furnish menstrual products (tampons, menstrual pads) in toilet rooms or another accessible location controlled by the employer, offering reasonable privacy.

Upcoming Scheduled Changes in 2024:

• Enhanced Termination Entitlements for Individual Termination: Starting February 1, 2024, the termination notice or pay in lieu of notice for individual termination under the CLC will increase based on the length of continuous employment, from two weeks after three consecutive months to a maximum of eight weeks after extended employment periods.
• Statement of Benefits during Individual Termination: Also starting February 1, 2024, upon individual termination, federally regulated employers must furnish employees with a comprehensive statement of benefits. This statement should outline their entitlements such as vacation benefits, wages, severance pay, and other employment-related benefits. The statement must be provided either during the working notice or, if pay in lieu is offered, by the termination date. This aligns with the existing requirement for group terminations.

Effective February 1, 2024, the termination entitlements under Part III of the Canada Labour Code (“CLC”) will undergo significant changes. These changes were introduced in the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, which aimed to modernize labour standards.

What Employers Are Regulated by Part III of the CLC?

Part III of the CLC, which sets labour standards for employment conditions, applies to employers in the following industries:

• air transportation, including airlines, airports, aerodromes and aircraft operations;
• banks, including authorized foreign banks;
• grain elevators, feed and seed mills, feed warehouses and grain-seed cleaning plants;
• first Nations Band Councils (including certain community services on reserve);
• most federal Crown corporations, for example, Canada Post Corporation;
• port services, marine shipping, ferries, tunnels, canals, bridges and pipelines (oil and gas) that cross international or provincial borders;
• radio and television broadcasting;
• railways that cross provincial or international borders and some short-line railways;
• road transportation services, including trucks and buses, that cross provincial or international borders;
• telecommunications, for example, telephone, internet, telegraph and cable systems;
• uranium mining and processing and atomic energy; and
• any business that is vital, essential or integral to the operation of one of the above activities.

Change #1: The Length of Termination Notice During Individual Termination

Under the current rules, employers are required to provide two weeks’ notice of termination or two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice to employees who have completed at least three months of continuous employment. The length of the notice is fixed at two weeks, no matter the employee’s tenure. This requirement does not apply in cases of termination for just cause or during a “group termination,” involving 50 or more employees facing termination.

Effective February 1, 2024, employers will have a graduated notice of termination, pay in lieu, or a combination of both, based on the length of an employee’s continuous employment.

For employees with three months to three years of continuous employment, their notice entitlement remains at two weeks. However, as employees reach the three-year mark, their entitlement increases to three weeks. Subsequently, entitlement increases in one-week increments for each additional year of employment, reaching a maximum of eight weeks:

• 3 months to 3 years less a day: 2 weeks
• 3 years to 4 years less a day: 3 weeks
• 4 years, to 5 years less a day: 4 weeks
• 5 years, to 6 years less a day: 5 weeks
• 6 years, to 7 years less a day: 6 weeks
• 7 years, to 8 years less a day: 7 weeks
• 8 years or more: 8 weeks

The increase only applies to individual termination.

Change #2: Statement of Benefits Requirement During Individual Termination

In addition to the increase in termination notice periods, employers will also be obligated to provide employees with a statement of benefits upon termination in the case of individual termination, starting February 1, 2024. This statement should detail employees’ entitlements, including vacation benefits, wages, severance pay, and any other benefits and pay arising from their employment. The statement must be provided at the time of termination, either as part of a working notice or, if pay in lieu is provided, no later than the date of termination. Note that this is the existing requirement for employers in the case of group termination.

How Will This Affect Employers?

For federally regulated employers, the increase in individual termination notice introduces a more nuanced and graduated approach to termination obligations, which aligns with employment and labour standards at the provincial and territorial levels. Bear in mind that, in addition to the termination notice, employers are required to pay severance pay when terminating employees with at least twelve months of continuous employment under S.235 of the CLC. Severance pay is calculated based on either two days’ wages for each completed year of employment or five days’ wages, whichever is greater.

Starting on February 1, 2024, it will be important for employers to ensure that employment contracts comply with the new minimum entitlements. Any contracts that provide less than the new minimum entitlements, such as limiting notice to the existing minimum of two weeks, may not be enforceable. This means that employers who do not comply with the new law may have to provide an employee with a common law reasonable notice, which can be a much larger amount than the minimum notice under the CLC. It is important for employers to review their employment contracts to ensure they are in compliance with the new minimum entitlements.

Next Steps for Employers?

Employers in federally regulated industries should take good note of these changes. Here are four key steps to take before February 1, 2024:

• Update Employment Contracts: Seek legal counsel to ensure your employment contracts align with these changes to the CLC.
• Update HR Policies: Review and update HR policies to ensure they are aligned with the amendment, reducing the risk of disputes and legal issues.
• Update Termination Documents: Revise termination documents to ensure compliance with the amendment to CLC.
• Budgetary Planning: Assess the potential financial impact of these changes and adjust your budgetary planning accordingly if you are planning to downsize or re-organize.

Losing your job can be devastating and overwhelming.  But right after you lose your job, there are steps you can take to make that might lessen that devastation. Here are some tips for Ontario employees to navigate that difficult period right after being terminated, including what to do and what to avoid.

What to Do:

Consult a Lawyer before You Sign Anything.

You will have received something in writing terminating your employment and offering you a severance package. You may have been asked to sign a release before receiving some or all of that package. You should seek legal advice before signing anything because the package offered to you might be less than what you are legally entitled to.  An experienced lawyer can carefully review your package, look at any written employment agreement you have, and give you peace of mind that you are not being short-changed on your termination pay entitlement, and help you understand the implications of any release or other agreement you might be asked to sign. Taking this initial step can be the “linchpin” in securing a fair resolution to your termination.

Understand Your Rights and Check Your Employment Contract.

If terminated without cause, by default, you are entitled to common law reasonable notice. However, you might be entitled to significantly less if there is an enforceable employment agreement that limits your entitlements to Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”). The ESA sets minimum standards for termination notice that must be provided to you.

If there is no written employment contract or offer, you are most likely entitled to the common law reasonable notice. For long-term employees, up to 2 years compensation, and sometimes more in exceptional circumstances, may be owed. Entitlements under the common law are generally much more than the ESA minimum standards, sometimes about four times more.

Fired for Cause?

If you are terminated for just cause, you may not be entitled to common law reasonable notice but could still be eligible for ESA minimum payments.

Wilful misconduct, which is more severe than just cause, disqualifies employees from receiving both ESA and common law notice. You may face termination without any compensation if you are guilty of wilful misconduct. This includes disobedience, wilful neglect, or serious misconduct that is not trivial and has not been condoned by the employer.

Employers may sometimes allege just cause or wilful misconduct to avoid paying termination pay. In many cases, these allegations can be challenged and reversed. If you find yourself in either scenario, it is advisable to seek legal advice promptly to understand your right to termination pay. Consulting with an employment lawyer can help you understand your rights regarding termination pay and navigate the legal aspects of your situation.

Assess, Calculate and Negotiate.

If you are entitled to common law reasonable notice, your entitlement is calculated based on what is referred to as the Bardal Factors that is your age, length of service, characteristics of the position, and availability of similar employment, but also other factors that are relevant to your situation.  For instance, if you have worked as a senior manager for over 5 years, are 60 years old, and there are very limited opportunities in your field, you might be entitled to up to 12 months reasonable notice or pay in lieu.  Many termination packages start with a low offer, and you might be entitled to significantly more.

Consider Litigation.

Employees may negotiate with employers to resolve disputes, but legal action may be necessary in those cases where the employer is not prepared to negotiate.  Many people fear litigation; however, there is no need to.  As noted above, litigation is relatively rare, and most claims are settled early in the process. If needed, litigators will drive this forward.

Job Search – Mitigate Your Loss.

After being terminated, you have the legal obligation to use reasonable efforts to replace the job you lost with a comparable one, to mitigate the loss of your job.  Your lawyer should be advising you to keep a record of your efforts, in case it is later needed during litigation to prove you have not breached your duty.

Other mitigation steps could include: updating your resume and LinkedIn profile;  attending networking events, or reaching out to professional contacts can help;  exploring opportunities for re-education or skills enhancement if that would help you to find comparable employment in a difficult market.

Apply for Government Benefits.

Employees who are terminated may be eligible for Employment Insurance (“EI”) benefits. Visit the Government of Canada’s website to learn more about eligibility criteria and how to apply for EI benefits. While receiving EI can avoid gaps in your income, please also keep in mind that you may need to remit what you get after receiving your severance package or judgment.

 

What Not to Do:

Don’t Disparage.

Avoid venting your frustrations on social media or speaking negatively about your former employer. During this challenging time, it is essential to maintain professionalism.

Disparaging and defamatory comments could expose you to liability, and also cause difficulties in negotiations. If you do bring a claim against your former employer, it could also lead to a counterclaim for damages against you. Tempting as it may be to vent your frustrations, it is best to maintain a positive and constructive attitude, regardless of any negative experiences.

Don’t Rush into Accepting a Job Offer out of Desperation.

It is important to take the time to carefully consider any job offer you receive, especially if you are feeling desperate for employment. You are only legally required to accept comparable jobs, not any job.  You should also bear in mind that any income you earn might be set off against termination pay that you might be claiming from your former employer.

Conclusion

Losing your job can be overwhelming, but following these steps can help you navigate the process more effectively. Remember that you have rights as an employee in Ontario, and seeking legal advice can be a crucial step in ensuring you are treated fairly during your termination.

As an employee, it is important to understand how your contractual benefits work in wrongful termination cases. Recent developments in Canadian employment law have brought attention to this issue, and it can have significant financial consequences for employees, especially those in executive positions. In one case, the court awarded an employee a bonus of over $1 million under a long-term incentive plan. In another case, the court granted the employee travel privileges valued over $1.8 million. If you are not aware of your entitlements, you could be leaving a lot of money on the table during negotiations if your employer has not structured your severance package correctly.

What Counts as Contractual Benefits?

Contractual benefits generally include the financial payments and non-monetary benefits provided to an employee on top of their base salary. For executives, contractual benefits often include short-term bonuses, long-term incentive plans (“LTIPs”), and other benefits such as stock options or RSUs. In many wrongful dismissal cases, employees often wonder if their bonuses should be paid out as part of severance package calculations. The answer to that is often yes.

In O’Reilly v. IMAX Corporation, 2019 ONCA 991 (“O’Reilly”), the Ontario Court of Appeal stated that contractual benefits include “pension benefits, bonuses, stock options, or other incentives.”

Sometimes, contractual benefits may include privileges like a company car, a business-paid cellphone, and, at the highest level, access to private travel by rented or owned jet. For example, in Ruel v. Air Canada, 2022 ONSC 1779 (“Ruel”), the Ontario Superior Court confirmed that the flight passes or travel privileges of the plaintiff, who was an executive of Air Canada, would fall with the rubric of “other incentives.”

Legal Framework

In the landmark case of Matthews v. Ocean Nutrition Canada Ltd., 2020 SCC 26 (“Matthews”), the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) affirmed a pivotal doctrine: in the event of an employee’s termination without just cause, that employee is entitled to compensation equivalent to what they would have earned during the notice period, including contractual benefits, unless there is language unambiguously excluding that entitlement.

For employees to claim these contractual benefits during the reasonable notice period, two prerequisites need to be considered under the Matthews framework:

1. Would the employee have been entitled to contractual benefits as part of their compensation during the reasonable notice period?

The SCC confirmed the first arm of the test set out in Paquette v. TeraGo Networks Inc., 2016 ONCA 618 (“Paquette”), with some modifications. It agreed with the Ontario Court of Appeal that “courts should examine whether, but for the termination, the employee would have been entitled to the bonus during the reasonable notice period.”

In favour of the employee, the SCC found that the “integral” test in Paquette is not required in every situation, especially when the benefits are not discretionary. For instance, if the realization event of an LTIP occurs during the reasonable notice period, the LTIP payment is assumed “integral” to his compensation because it is not based on the employer’s discretion.

Courts should only assess whether the benefits are “an integral part” of the employee’s overall compensation in cases where they are discretionary, similar to Paquette.

In other words, if the realization event, such as the maturity date, falls within the reasonable notice period, an employee can say that satisfies the first arm of the test.

2. If yes, do the terms of the employment contract or incentive plan unambiguously take away or limit that right?

The SCC confirmed the second arm of the Paquette test. That is, whether the terms of the employment contract or incentive plan clearly limit or remove that common law right. Courts always interpret the terms in favour of employees.

The SCC noted that only using the terms such as “full-time” or “active” does not remove an employee’s common law right to damages for loss of bonus/incentives, because the employment contract is not considered “terminated” for calculating wrongful dismissal damages until after the reasonable notice period. If the employee had received adequate notice, they would have been actively employed full-time during the reasonable notice period. As such, even if the clause explicitly refers to an “unlawful termination,” it still will not clearly and unambiguously affect the employee’s common law entitlement.

Further, in O’Reilly, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the simple term “termination for any reason” does not unambiguously take away the employee’s entitlement to contractual benefits upon wrongful dismissal. Similarly, simple language like “termination with or without cause” does not exclude an employee’s entitlement to benefits.

In other words, “unambiguity” means that the exclusion or limiting clauses must be very detailed to clearly cover every circumstance that may lead to the end of an employment relationship. Employees should receive all contractual benefits absent such an unambiguous exclusion clause.

 

Stock Options and Restricted Stock Units

When it comes to stock options or Restricted Stock Units (“RSUs”), things can be more complex since the concepts of “granting” “vesting”, and “exercising” can be confusing to employees.

When employees are granted either stock options or RSUs, it does not mean they obtain ownership immediately of any shares or cash in lieu. Employees do not own either until they are vested. Typically, they vest in tranches over a period of time, such as 25% per year over four years.  Once stock options are vested, an employee has the right to “exercise” the vested options by purchasing shares at a pre-determined price (of great value if the business is doing well and the stock price is rising).  In contrast, once an RSU is vested, the employee is usually paid out in shares, without having to purchase them, or provided with a cash amount pegged to the price of shares, depending on the RSU plan’s terms.

For employees fighting wrongful dismissal cases involving stock options or RSUs, the key is examining the language used in the plans. Specifically, they need to see if the exclusion clause unambiguously restricts or eliminates the stock options or the RSUs from being vested during the reasonable notice period. If it does not, the employee likely has the right to continue the vesting process even after termination.

Conclusion

Employees are generally entitled to nondiscretionary contractual benefits during the common law notice period, unless their employment contracts or bonus/incentive plans clearly and unambiguously limit or remove the entitlement.

The intricate legal interplay between wrongful dismissal cases and contractual benefits, like bonuses, incentives, stock options, and RSUs, underscores the necessity of understanding how courts have looked at employees’ termination entitlements and the importance of carefully examining the contractual language. In navigating the complexities of contractual benefits, employment documents and termination packages, employees are strongly advised to engage legal counsel to ensure their rights and entitlements are safeguarded.