Because many work stoppages are made without cause, Ontario courts have rarely reviewed employment contracts in such cases when ESA resources are unsuitable for ESA`s provisions, but not for the reason. In a dismissal without notice, it could have been argued that the basic pension had simply been characterized as a “moot”. In a recent decision, Waksdale v Swegon North America Inc. (Waksdale),1 the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled otherwise. The job may be terminated for no reason if an appropriate dismissal is made, in accordance with applicable labour or work standards. By signing below, you agree that upon receipt of your rights under this legislation, no additional amount will be owed and payable to you, either under the law or by the common law. If. B, for example, an employer has dismissed a worker and simply opposes it, even if it recognizes its obligation to maintain benefit coverage, the worker can successfully argue that the employer must be denied protection under a clause that it has refused to apply. As part of the appeal process, the Court considered whether the illegality of the termination provision had nullified the two termination provisions. The Court ultimately ruled in Mr. Waksdale`s favour and found that the inapplicability of the provision on the ground extended without reason to the provision. It did not matter that he was not dismissed himself under the illegal clause.
In addition, the Court held that the deterrence clause would not work “without reason” to save the provision. It is customary today for employers to include redundancy clauses in their employment contracts in order to reduce their termination costs. As a general rule, the termination clause allows the employer to terminate the worker`s employment by making available to the worker a set of severance pay that is significantly less than that of the employer who was obliged to give reasonable notice to the worker. However, a redundancy clause has the advantage of guaranteeing a worker`s rights in the event of dismissal. In Machtinger v. HOJ Industries Ltd.,  1 P.C.R.986 (“Machtinger”), the Supreme Court of Canada held that if an employment contract contains a termination clause that confers a worker a different right in the event of reasonable dismissal, that right must be at least equal to the worker`s worker`s right under the ESA. If the dismissal clause grants the worker less than his rights under the ESA, the dismissal clause is not applicable and the court will remove the termination clause from the employment contract and give the worker an appropriate dismissal.