Canada: Unfair/ Wrongful Dismissal

The Ontario Court of Appeal has issued a significant ruling on how Restricted Stock Units must be treated during termination notice periods under employment law. This decision addresses whether RSUs continue to vest when an employee is terminated, both under statutory notice periods prescribed by the Employment Standards Act and under common law notice periods when contractual termination provisions are unenforceable.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that employees are entitled to continued vesting of RSUs and equity-based compensation during the statutory notice period, striking down forfeiture provisions that attempt to end vesting immediately upon termination. In a landmark decision awarding Dr. Wigdor nearly US$4.7 million in unvested RSUs, the Court clarified that equity compensation constitutes a "term or condition of employment" protected under the Employment Standards Act. What does this mean for employers w

A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision establishes that restricted stock units (RSUs) constitute a "term or condition of employment" under the Employment Standards Act, potentially entitling terminated employees to continued vesting during their notice period. The ruling in Wigdor v. Facebook Canada Ltd. resulted in a US $4.7 million award and raises critical questions about whether standard forfeiture clauses in RSU agreements can lawfully cut off vesting upon termination.

The Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Wigdor v. Facebook Canada Ltd. awarded a former employee over US$4.7 million in Restricted Share Units, establishing that such benefits must continue vesting during statutory notice periods. This landmark ruling emphasizes the critical importance of statutory compliance in employment agreements, particularly following business acquisitions, and clarifies that forfeiture provisions cannot override employees' rights to contractual benefits during notice periods.

The British Columbia Supreme Court decision in Hedrick v Johnston Meier Insurance Agencies Ltd. examines when an employment contract can be terminated due to frustration, particularly after an employee develops permanent psychological injuries from workplace stalking. The case clarifies employer obligations under workplace health and safety laws and addresses when WorkSafeBC benefits may be deducted from wrongful dismissal damages.

Ontario's Court of Appeal has clarified the enforceability of termination clauses in employment agreements, addressing the growing uncertainty around contractual language that limits employee entitlements. The decision in Baker v. Van Dolder's Home Team Inc. provides practical guidance on how courts should interpret termination provisions, emphasizing a common-sense approach over technical scrutiny of hypothetical defects.

Explore the latest developments in Canadian employment and labour law, including court decisions on cross-border disputes, wrongful dismissal damages, non-compete clauses, and emerging AI regulations. Stay informed about critical changes affecting employers across federal and provincial jurisdictions.

The Ontario Superior Court's decision in Silva v Royal Bank of Canada examines whether regulatory compliance concerns and policy violations automatically justify dismissal for cause. When RBC terminated a long-serving financial planner following an investigation into client transactions and compliance practices, the Court scrutinized not only the alleged misconduct but also the fairness of the investigation and the substantial impact of regulatory reporting on the employee's future career prospects.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has resolved a critical question about employment contract enforceability, determining whether common phrases like "at any time" and "for any reason" in termination provisions violate employment standards legislation. The decision addresses conflicting lower court rulings and establishes new guidance on how courts should interpret termination clauses in employment agreements.