We know that employers usually owe notice of termination.
But can an employee just walk out without providing fair notice?
Many employers are vexed – and seriously inconvenienced
– when an employee announces the decision to quit and departs
without properly handing off the work. Employers don't have to
live with that.
It is well-settled law that, absent a contractually enforceable
termination provision, an employee must provide an employer with
reasonable notice of the employee's decision to end the
See RBC Dominion Securities Inc.
v. Merrill Lynch,  3 S.C.R. 79.
See also Oxman v. Dustbane Enterprises Ltd.,  OJ No.
The amount of notice that must be provided in advance of an
employee's resignation is not always easy to assess. The
"high watermark" appears to be the trial decision in
GasTops v. Forsyth, 2012 ONCA 134, where the trial judge
held that the four individual defendants who were key employees
ought to have provided notice in the range of 10 to 12 months.
Note, however, that the Ontario Court of Appeal, while upholding
the damage award, stated:
"Suffice it to say that we should not be taken to agree
with the 10 – 12 months suggested by the trial judge or the
factors he considered in reaching that period."
On March 11 of this year, the British Columbia Court of Appeal
held that the appropriate notice to be given by an estimator with
five years of service was one month. 1
In an older decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the
findings of the trial judge, who decided that the appropriate
notice for a key employee with only 18 months of service was three
The most recent Ontario decision on the point is that of Justice
Gordon on January 11, 2016 in Gagnon & Associates Inc. v.
Jesso, 2016 ONSC 209.
This dispute raged for some 10 years, culminating in an
eight-day trial that covered much more than the issue of how much
notice Mr. Jesso ought to have provided to his former employer. In
a decision of mixed successes, the court held that after 10 years
of service, the employee – who was a very successful
salesman making over $180,000/year – ought to have
provided two months' notice of termination.
The measure of damages in these situations is not the cost of
replacing the employee, given that in many situations these costs
would arise independent of the length of notice provided. Rather,
the exercise is to assess the loss to the employer or increased
costs occasioned by the inadequacy of the notice. By way of
example, the employer may experience a loss of revenues or
additional costs associated with obtaining or redeploying resources
on an emergency basis.
Again, the amount of notice that a court will require in any
particular fact situation is not always easy to predict, suggesting
that the parties are perhaps well-advised to provide for this by
way of written agreement.
1Consvec Inc. v. Walker, 2016 BCCA 114
2Bradley v. Carleton Electric Ltd., 1998 CanLII
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The prospect of an internal investigation raises many thorny issues. This presentation will canvass some of the potential triggering events, and discuss how to structure an investigation, retain forensic assistance and manage the inevitable ethical issues that will arise.
From the boardroom to the shop floor, effective organizations recognize the value of having a diverse workplace. This presentation will explore effective strategies to promote diversity, defeat bias and encourage a broader community outlook.
Staying local but going global presents its challenges. Gowling WLG lawyers offer an international roundtable on doing business in the U.K., France, Germany, China and Russia. This three-hour session will videoconference in lawyers from around the world to discuss business and intellectual property hurdles.
Unfortunately, reasonable accommodation for employees in the workplace continues to be the source of significant litigation and even today we continue to see outrageous examples of employers behaving badly.
We are now beginning to see reported cases involving charges and subsequent fines laid against employers for failing to provide information, instruction and supervision to protect a worker from workplace violence.
On October 13, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal an Ontario Court of Appeal decision which ordered an employer to pay a former employee 37 months of salary and benefits following termination.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).