KNOW YOUR OWN DOCUMENTS
The Court found an employee did not owe a duty to draw the termination clause of his employment contract to the attention of the employer.
First, the relationship between the parties did not require that the employee (who drafted the contract) draw the term to the attention to the employer (who did not read the contract before signing). Second, if the employee owed such a duty, he discharged that duty when he advised the employer to read the contract.
A unilateral mistake as to a material term of a contract will afford a ground of relief in equity only where the mistake operates as a fraud or surprise upon an ignorant party. The Court will not interfere where one party is not bound to communicate the facts to the other party. A party is only so bound if a special relationship exists between the parties, such as a fiduciary relationship or one that gives rise to a duty of good faith.
978011 Ontario Ltd. v. Cornell Engineering Co. (2001), 53 O.R. (3d) 783 (Ont. C.A.)
WHAT THE CONTRACT DIDN’T SAY
The plaintiff’s employment was terminated without cause. For the 10 years before her termination, the plaintiff’s employment was governed by a series of fixed-term contracts that were renewed annually for more than 15 years. The contract stated: “The Federation and the Employee agree to abide by the Ontario Employment Standards Act and regulations concerning notice of termination of employment.”
The Court concluded the contract was for an indefinite period, based on evidence that the plaintiff and other members of the employer had a reasonable expectation the plaintiff was permanent.
The Court then considered if the employment contract restricted the amount of notice or pay in lieu thereof due upon termination by the employer without cause. The Court determined the contract in question did not address the circumstance of termination by the employer without cause. Although the employment contract stated that termination would be in accordance with the Employment Standards Act, it only specifically addressed termination in three circumstances: termination by the employee, termination for cause, and termination during the probationary period. Because the contract did not specifically address the circumstance of termination by the employer without cause, the references in the contract to termination in accordance with the Employment Standards Act could not be found to apply.
The Court found a reasonable common law notice period was appropriate, and awarded 16 months’ notice, less four months for the plaintiff’s failure to mitigate.
Ceccol v. Ontario Gymnastic Federation (2001), 55 O.R. (3d) 614 (Ont. C.A.)
Source: Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP.
The Court found an employee did not owe a duty to draw the termination clause of his employment contract to the attention of the employer.
First, the relationship between the parties did not require that the employee (who drafted the contract) draw the term to the attention to the employer (who did not read the contract before signing). Second, if the employee owed such a duty, he discharged that duty when he advised the employer to read the contract.
A unilateral mistake as to a material term of a contract will afford a ground of relief in equity only where the mistake operates as a fraud or surprise upon an ignorant party. The Court will not interfere where one party is not bound to communicate the facts to the other party. A party is only so bound if a special relationship exists between the parties, such as a fiduciary relationship or one that gives rise to a duty of good faith.
978011 Ontario Ltd. v. Cornell Engineering Co. (2001), 53 O.R. (3d) 783 (Ont. C.A.)
WHAT THE CONTRACT DIDN’T SAY
The plaintiff’s employment was terminated without cause. For the 10 years before her termination, the plaintiff’s employment was governed by a series of fixed-term contracts that were renewed annually for more than 15 years. The contract stated: “The Federation and the Employee agree to abide by the Ontario Employment Standards Act and regulations concerning notice of termination of employment.”
The Court concluded the contract was for an indefinite period, based on evidence that the plaintiff and other members of the employer had a reasonable expectation the plaintiff was permanent.
The Court then considered if the employment contract restricted the amount of notice or pay in lieu thereof due upon termination by the employer without cause. The Court determined the contract in question did not address the circumstance of termination by the employer without cause. Although the employment contract stated that termination would be in accordance with the Employment Standards Act, it only specifically addressed termination in three circumstances: termination by the employee, termination for cause, and termination during the probationary period. Because the contract did not specifically address the circumstance of termination by the employer without cause, the references in the contract to termination in accordance with the Employment Standards Act could not be found to apply.
The Court found a reasonable common law notice period was appropriate, and awarded 16 months’ notice, less four months for the plaintiff’s failure to mitigate.
Ceccol v. Ontario Gymnastic Federation (2001), 55 O.R. (3d) 614 (Ont. C.A.)
Source: Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP.
