Call Us Now

Blog

The Contractual Requirement of “Active Service” Does Not Alter or Remove An Employee’s Right to Compensation for Bonus Payments During The Reasonable Notice Period.

Posted On: December, 02 2016

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently confirmed that the contractual requirement for employees to be “actively employed” to receive their regular bonus payments or other employment benefits is not enough to displace an employee’s right to common law damages for breach of contract in wrongful termination cases.

In Paquette v TeraGo Networks, 2016 ONCA 618 the Court made clear that in the calculation of common law damages only contractual language that unambiguously alters or removes an employee’s common law rights may be sufficient to exclude compensation for an employee’s bonus.  

Mr. Paquette was terminated from his employment with TeraGO Networks.  On a summary judgment motion, the court denied Mr. Paquette compensation for lost bonuses as part of his common law damages on the basis that his employer’s bonus plan required employees to be “actively employed” at the time the bonus was to be paid (see Paquette v TeraGo, 2015 ONSC 4189 at paragraph 64).

On appeal from the summary judgment motion, the Court of Appeal concluded that the proper way to analyze a claim for common law damages in a wrongful termination suit is to first consider the damages suffered by the employee based on their complete compensation package, including bonus payments and any other benefits, and then to consider whether the terms of any contract alters or excludes the employee’s common law rights. 

Of most significance in the Paquette decision is the Court of Appeal’s clear statement that “[a] term that requires active employment when the bonus is paid, without more, is not sufficient to deprive an employee terminated without reasonable notice of a claim for compensation for the bonus he or she would have received during the notice period, as part of his or her wrongful dismissal damages.”

Relying on its decision in Kieran v Ingram Micro Inc (2004), 33 CCEL (3d) 157 (ONCA), the Court of Appeal gives further guidance as to the type of language that may displace an employee’s right to full compensation.

In Kieran, the issue was whether a terminated employee was entitled to an extension of time equal to the reasonable notice period to exercise his stock options.  The plan in question required employees to exercise their stock options within 60 days from the termination of employment. The Court of Appeal determined that this language was sufficient to remove the employee’s entitlement under the common law, because the plan defined “Termination of employment” as “the date the employee ‘ceases to perform services for’ the employer ‘without regard to whether the employee continues thereafter to receive any compensatory payments therefrom or is paid salary thereby in lieu of notice of termination.’”  

In Paquette, the Court of Appeal does not resile from its decision in Kieran, indicating that similar language in an employee bonus plan may be sufficient to displace the employee’s common law right to compensation for a bonus that would have otherwise received during the reasonable notice period.  It is of note, however, that the Court explicitly declines to decide whether the test that applies to stock options is the same as that which applies to bonuses. 

Prior to Paquette, the case law was mixed as to the contractual language that would effectively exclude bonus payments during reasonable notice period.  Many employees are likely under the mistaken belief that due to the language contained in their employee benefit plans, they are not entitled to compensation for bonus or other benefit payments that would have been received during the reasonable notice period.  Terminated employees should, therefore, always seek legal advice to confirm their rights to notice or compensation in lieu thereof.

Similarly, employers should always consult a lawyer in drafting their employment agreements and related policies.  In the wake of Paquette, there are likely a significant number of employers who still believe themselves to be protected by the “actively employed” language in their bonus or benefit plans, which the Court of Appeal has now determined to be insufficient.

 

No feedback yet

Leave a comment


Your email address will not be revealed on this site.
BadExcellent
(For my next comment on this site)
(Allow users to contact me through a message form -- Your email will not be revealed!)

Contact Us

RECENT NEWS & EVENTS

5 STAR REVIEWS

  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto Wray James Reviewed by SB

    I just wanted to let you know how happy I am with the outcome and how very grateful I am for the guidance and support that you and your team provided.
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto Wray James Reviewed by Google user

    Patrick James is really a great lawyer who is smart and great to deal with. He's been our litigation counsel for over 5 years on several different matters. Patrick recently gave our company great strategic advice that resulted in a big commercial litigation win for our company. He's fierce, tenacious, and really cares about getting the best outcome for his clients.
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto Wray James Reviewed by Google user

    Patrick is a very good lawyer. He recently successfully defended a lawsuit against my company and has pursued several litigation claims for us in the past. All claims settled input favour. Mr. James is smart and quickly gives you great strategic advice. Patrick has been a real asset to our business.
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto Wray James Reviewed by Sandra L.

    Andrew Wray and Patrick James recently helped settle a difficult situation for me and my family. The results were exactly what we were hoping for. They are honest, strategic and will provide you with the best advice for you and your financial situation. I highly recommend them to everyone I know.
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto Wray James Reviewed by Mark C.

    Their team is highly focused and incredibly professional - from our experience it would be difficult not to believe that Pinto Wray James are one of Ontario's leading Firms in Labor and Employment law. The mindful client care and complete understanding of the case eased fears and the stress that comes with any legal dispute. Expect to find high level smartly crafted legal solutions at Pinto Wray James LLP - couldn't recommend more.
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto Wray James Reviewed by Sherry C.

    Patrick is knowledgeable, strategic, supportive, and patient. His guidance and advice helped me to maintain focus and to keep things in perspective. His experience and keen perception provides him with an edge that allows him to assess the situation, the people involved, and to offer a strategic resolution that works best for all involved. If you ever require legal advice and assistance, I highly recommend him and his team. They will be there 100% for you.
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto Wray James Reviewed by Christian V.

    Patrick is a fearless advocate for diverse clients. His strategic approach, and his empathy, are what set him apart as a litigator, and champion of the underdog.
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto Wray James Reviewed by A Google User

    I have no hesitation recommending Andrew Wray of Pinto Wray James LLP. He provided me with legal advice regarding an employment law issue and his council was practical and honest. Andrew's approach is very much one of blending legal excellence with good common sense. An excellent lawyer!
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto Wray James Reviewed by Larry S.

    Patrick listens to his clients and shows compassion, empathy and professionalism. He cares deeply that the individual that has been wrongfully terminated gets the best judgment available to him. I would not hesitate in recommending him to friends or family.
Submit