Employer’s Finances Are Not Relevant to Reasonable Notice

The Ontario Court of Appeal was recently asked to consider whether an employer’s financial circumstances are relevant in a wrongful dismissal action. Do financially-challenged employers get to provide less reasonable notice to their wrongfully dismissed employees? The answer is no, according to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Michela v. St. Thomas of Villanova Catholic School was a wrongful dismissal case involving three employees who were given insufficient notice that their teaching positions would be terminated. At trial, the employer had provided evidence to show that it was going through financial difficulties, meaning that the dismissals were required for budgetary reasons.

The trial court accepted that the employees had been wrongfully dismissed by the employer, and the trial court accepted that the employees would ordinarily be entitled to 12 months of notice. However, the trial court cut each of the employees’ wrongful dismissal awards in half, from 12 months to 6 months of reasonable notice each, to address the employer’s financial difficulties. Considering the employer’s financial difficulties, the trial court stated that “the law does not ignore the dilemma of the employer.”

The employees appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. They argued that an employer’s financial circumstances may be the reason that employees are wrongfully dismissed, but an employer’s financial circumstances do not justify a reduction in the reasonable notice period. The employees argued that the trial judge’s decision to reduce their reasonable notice period from 12 months to 6 months was an error.

Reasonable notice is all about the employee

The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with the employees, stating that it was an error to consider the employer’s financial difficulties when determining the reasonable notice period. Reasonable notice is all about the employee, not the employer. The Court of Appeal stated clearly that “an employer’s financial circumstances are not relevant to the determination of reasonable notice in a particular case.”

As a result, the employees were successful on the appeal. The Court of Appeal increased the employees’ wrongful dismissal damages from 6 months of reasonable notice back up to 12 months of reasonable notice.

What we learned from Michela

The Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Michela is in line with what the BC Court of Appeal has stated for decades. A 1987 decision from the BC Court of Appeal, Anderson v. Haakon Industries (Canada) Ltd., held that it is the obligation of an employer to give reasonable notice to its employees, regardless of the employer’s financial difficulties, and “that obligation will not be reduced to reflect the adverse financial condition of the employer.” However, several recent trial court decisions across Canada had seemed to question that principle. The Michela decision should help put an end to those cases, and helps to clarify that the law has not changed. This decision should provide greater clarity to both employees and employers. A wrongfully dismissed employee is owed reasonable notice, and the length of reasonable notice does not change because of the employer’s financial circumstances.

brendan harvey - wrongful dismissal vancouver
About the Author

Brendan Harvey advises and represents employees and small businesses at all stages before, during, and after the employment relationship. His primary areas of practice include wrongful dismissal, employment standards, and human rights litigation. If you would like to schedule a meeting with Brendan Harvey or any other of our lawyers, give us a call at 604-988-1000.



Recent Posts

Not every employee has a written employment contract as proof of their employment. In fact, the opposite is more commonplace than most people would guess. Many employees are hired verbally, without any physical documentation outlining the terms of their employment. This is fine if everything runs smoothly in the workplace. But if it doesn’t, it […]
It’s a hotly debated and highly complicated situation when interpreting the differences between the independent contractor and the employee. They’re often swimming around in the same waters, especially in long-term arrangements where services are provided in the workplace.  On the other hand, from a legal point of view, they couldn’t be more different.   “Although […]
As mentioned in the previous article about  employment contracts and independent workers, there are many misconceptions regarding what it is that defines an independent contractor from an employee.  If your employment arrangement comes to an unhappy end and you wind up in court, the legal status of your agreement will be in question.   Employment […]