In today's legal climate, one outdated clause in your employment contract could cost you everything – this report shows you how to get it right
In the eyes of the law, even a single sentence in an employment agreement can mean the difference between a clean exit and a six-figure legal bill. That’s the quiet warning running through Drafting Employment Contracts: Inside the Fine Print that Protects Employers, a detailed new report from Minken Employment Lawyers that urges businesses to take contracts seriously.
The 2025 guide offers a clear-eyed look at how job offers, once considered a formality or afterthought, have become a frontline legal defense for Canadian employers. As courts become increasingly protective of employee rights, particularly in Ontario, the standard employment contract is no longer just a form; it’s a high-stakes legal instrument, one that must be drafted with surgical precision.
At the heart of the report is a startling fact: nearly 90 percent of termination clauses in existing contracts are invalid under current law. That statistic alone underscores why businesses are being urged to abandon online templates and boilerplate language in favor of bespoke agreements built for today’s legal climate.
The report does more than sound the alarm. It provides a roadmap. It walks through the key clauses that every employer needs to consider – termination terms, remote work policies, dress codes, non-solicitation, and exclusivity clauses – each accompanied by concrete guidance.
And the timing couldn’t be more relevant. In the wake of recent decisions from Ontario’s Court of Appeal – cases like Waksdale and De Castro – even contracts drafted with good intentions are being tossed out over unclear language or clauses that fail to meet the standards set out by the province’s Employment Standards Act.
Take remote work, for example. What began as an emergency measure in 2020 has now become a permanent feature of many workplaces. Yet, according to the report, employers who fail to include clear hybrid or remote work language may be inadvertently locking themselves out of calling workers back to the office without triggering a claim of constructive dismissal.
Other sections highlight equally fraught territory. Employers who want to limit post-employment solicitation of clients or staff must navigate strict judicial scrutiny around what is “reasonable.” Even seemingly harmless inclusions, like vague promises of salary reviews or loosely worded confidentiality expectations, can erode enforceability when challenged.
The takeaway? Contracts aren’t just formalities – they’re your first and sometimes only line of protection. And in a legal climate where the default favors employees, the burden is squarely on employers to get the details right.
The Drafting Employment Contracts report is equal parts legal primer and practical checklist. For business owners, HR professionals, and legal teams alike, it offers a grounded reminder: in employment law, what you don’t say – or say poorly – can hurt you.
Take a look at the Drafting Employment Contracts: Inside the Fine Print that Protects Employers report today and learn how to better protect your business.
