The B.C. Supreme Court's decision in Alsip v. Top Rollshutters Inc. (c.o.b. Talius), 2015 BCSC 1166 serves as a cautionary tale to employers when they are preparing employment contracts. Ambiguity in employment agreements is likely to be interpreted in favour of employees and can prove very costly, particularly where the contract in question is found to be a fixed term employment agreement.

In 2012 the parties in Alsip negotiated the plaintiff's potential employment as director of sales. Following an initial offer, the parties modified a few terms of the contract and added a term that the agreement was a three year employment contract. The plaintiff signed the modified offer and commenced employment with the defendant. Approximately nine months into the three year fixed term, the plaintiff was terminated without cause and provided with two weeks' salary in lieu of notice. The plaintiff declined an offer of a further six weeks salary in exchange for his signature on a release of further claims. He obtained replacement employment at a lower salary and commenced legal action against the employer.

The plaintiff relied on case law which holds that when an employee is dismissed without cause prior to the end of a fixed term contract the employee is entitled to payment of the balance of the fixed term contract less the amount he/she earned from replacement employment.

The employer argued that the reference in the offer of employment to three years was intended to indicate only that the plaintiff's employment would be for a maximum of three years but that the employer retained the ability to terminate the plaintiff with reasonable notice.

The Court did not accept the employer's argument noting that this argument was not supported by the wording of the employment agreement which had been drafted by the employer: "if the [employer] had intended to include a provision to allow termination on notice, it could have included the same".

The Court found that the agreement between the parties was a fixed term contract and awarded the plaintiff more than $141,500, the amount owing to the plaintiff for the remainder of the three year fixed term agreement less the amount the plaintiff earned from his replacement employment during this period.

Lessons for Employers

  • When interpreting an employment agreement a court will apply the principle of contra preferentem which means that it will interpret ambiguity unfavourably to the drafter of the agreement. As it is employers who often draft employment agreements it is imperative that employers avoid unnecessary ambiguity and clearly set out all terms that are intended to form part of an employment agreement. The employment agreement in Alsip was a one page employment offer letter which lacked clarity. This ambiguity ended up costing the employer.
  • Absent clear wording that allows an employer to terminate a fixed-term agreement early, the measure of damages when an employee is dismissed without cause during a fixed term agreement will be the compensation still due to the employee for the remainder of the term of the agreement, less any income earned by the dismissed employee in mitigation of his/her damages during the term of the agreement. The Court's decision in Alsip shows that such damages can be very sizeable and disproportionate to an employee's length of service.

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.