Court confirms: precise wording can limit severance to ESA minimums
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.
Mitigation in wrongful dismissal: Court of Appeal raises the bar for employers
When a long-serving employee is dismissed, the law requires them to take reasonable steps to look for new work. This is called the “duty to mitigate.” But what happens when an employer argues that the employee didn’t try hard enough? The Ontario Court of Appeal recently gave a clear answer in Pateman v. Koolatron Corporation, 2025 ONCA 224.
Who owns the patient? What happens when a professional leaves a practice
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.
Miller v. AlayaCare Inc: Lessons on termination clauses, inducement, and employer risk
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.