When it comes to termination clauses, a single word can make the difference between a modest payout and a significant severance award. The Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Bertsch v. Datastealth Inc. (2025 ONCA 379) is a reminder that airtight drafting can protect employers, while unclear wording can expose them to major liability.

When a company closes its doors, employees are often left wondering: What happens to my pay, benefits, and severance?

In Coscarella Dentistry Professional Corporation v. Harvey, 2025 ONCA 118, the Ontario Court of Appeal considered what happens when a professional leaves a practice and informs patients of the move.

The Ontario Superior Court’s recent decision in Miller v. AlayaCare Inc. serves as a crucial reminder for employers about the enforceability of termination clauses and the potential impact of inducement in wrongful dismissal cases. Despite only six months of service, the plaintiff was awarded a 14-month notice period, highlighting the risks associated with improperly drafted employment agreements and recruitment practices.

The Ontario Divisional Court recently made this crystal clear in Metrolinx v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1587 (2024 ONSC 1900). In this case, offensive messages about female employees were shared in a private group chat outside of work. One affected employee who saw the messages did not want to file a complaint, but the employer investigated anyway.

When the matter went to court, the Divisional Court confirmed that once harassment is known to the employer, the obligation to investigate is triggered.