Judge says issue of reasonable notice turns on whether employer induced individual to leave secure employment
A wrongful dismissal case has been sent to trial after an Ontario judge found serious credibility issues preventing a quick resolution.
In a decision dated Jan. 13, 2026, Justice Charles Chang of the Ontario Superior Court dismissed a motion for summary judgment, ruling that critical questions about whether Kylie Campbell was induced to leave secure employment and implications for her severance could not be resolved without witness testimony and cross-examination.
Two disputed issues are at the heart of the case: The first is how much notice is required when terminating without cause, and the second is whether discretionary bonuses must be paid during the notice period.
Two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice
Campbell was employed as director of the project management office at Grand Bovino for less than two years. Under a written agreement dated Dec. 1, 2021, she earned a base salary of $180,000 with an annual discretionary bonus, monthly vehicle allowance, and participation in health benefits and pension plans.
She commenced employment on Jan. 12, 2022, and was terminated without cause on Oct. 13, 2023. Upon termination, the defendant paid two weeks' pay in lieu of notice plus $3,323 in accumulated vacation pay.
Before joining Grand Bovino, Campbell worked at Averton Residential as director of project management starting Jan. 18, 2021. At Averton, she earned the same $180,000 base salary but with a guaranteed bonus equal to 20 percent of that salary—not discretionary. She left Averton after being contacted by a recruiter on behalf of Grand Bovino.
The heart of the dispute is what happened during that recruitment. Did Grand Bovino induce her to leave?
Inducement and termination costs
Justice Chang identified the central employment law question: "The issue of reasonable notice turns on whether the defendant induced the plaintiff to leave secure employment to join its ranks."
Campbell argues she was induced to leave secure employment at Averton, which should increase her reasonable notice period. Grand Bovino denies any inducement occurred.
The court noted that the affidavit evidence from both parties "materially conflicts" on this critical issue. Campbell's evidence supports inducement; the employer’s evidence denies it entirely.
The judge determined that resolving this dispute requires more than written submissions.
"The parties must adduce the evidence of witnesses with knowledge of the relevant facts, and that evidence must be tested by cross-examination," Chang wrote.
"In my view, only after receiving that evidence, tested by cross-examination and subject to a proper assessment of those witnesses' credibility, can the court determine the issue of whether the plaintiff was induced to leave secure employment with Averton to take up employment with the defendant."
Entitlement to bonus payments
The second major dispute involves Campbell's entitlement to bonus payments. She is claiming the full 20 percent bonus for 2023 plus a pro-rated amount for the reasonable notice period in 2024. Grand Bovino is arguing that she is entitled to no bonus payment for either year.
Complicating matters is an unexplained $20,000 payment from Grand Bovino to Campbell at the end of 2022. The judge noted this payment requires witness testimony to properly understand and resolve.
The matter will proceed to trial where both the inducement question and bonus entitlement will be determined. As the court stated: "In conclusion, I find the case-at-bar to be inappropriate for summary judgment, and that this motion must therefore be dismissed."
