Many employment contracts try to limit what an employee receives when they are let go. In Machtinger v. HOJ Industries Ltd., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 986, the Supreme Court of Canada decided what happens when that limit falls below the minimum the province's employment standards law guarantees. The answer shapes how every termination clause in Ontario is read today.

Two managers at a car dealership had contracts that allowed the employer to dismiss them with no notice in one case and two weeks' notice in the other. That was less than the Ontario employment standards legislation of the time required. When they were dismissed after about seven years each, the question was whether they were entitled only to the statutory minimum or to reasonable notice at common law.

The Supreme Court held that the clauses were void because they tried to contract out of the statutory minimum. With no valid clause left, the presumption that an employee is entitled to reasonable notice applied. Justice Iacobucci reasoned that if employers could simply be ordered to pay the minimum when caught, they would have little reason to comply with the Act in the first place.
It may be, if it is clear and complies with the Act in every respect, including benefits and the rules for dismissal for cause. Each clause has to be read as a whole.
Usually not. Ontario courts have held that a severability clause can't rescue a termination provision that breaches the Act.
Photos from Pexels: A Lady Justice statue holding the scales · Law books on a library shelf.
This article is general information for people in Ontario, not legal advice. Rules, forms and deadlines change, and every situation is different. Check the current rule or speak to a licensed legal professional before you act.
Not sure where you stand? A licensed paralegal can look at your documents and tell you your options.
Book a Free ConsultationLoading comments…