Chowanetz v Ivor Forest Products Ltd., 2026 BCSC 1760, is a reminder that changing an employment contract after the relationship has already begun requires more than a new signature.
James Chowanetz had worked for Ivor Forest Products for nearly five years as a moulder technician. During his employment, the company asked him to sign a new agreement that included a limitation on what he would receive if his employment ended.
The employer relied on continued employment and compensation as consideration for the new agreement.
The B.C. Supreme Court found that was not enough.
The wage increase the employer pointed to had already been provided before the new contract was signed. On the evidence, it was not a new benefit offered in exchange for accepting the termination restriction. Continued employment also did not supply the missing fresh consideration.
That meant the new contractual severance limitation was unenforceable.
The Court then assessed reasonable notice at common law. It considered the employee's age, nearly five years of service, the nature of his technical role and the surrounding employment circumstances. It awarded six months of notice.
The employer also argued that damages should be reduced because the employee had not done enough to mitigate his loss. The Court was not persuaded. Even where a job search is limited, the employer still has to establish that suitable employment could likely have been found through reasonable efforts.
The employee's aggravated damages claim was dismissed because the evidence did not establish compensable distress beyond the ordinary upset associated with dismissal.
The decision matters whenever an employer tries to introduce a new employment agreement after work has already started. A revised contract can contain valuable protections for the employer, including termination language, but those restrictions need an enforceable contractual foundation.
For HR teams, timing matters. If a new restriction is introduced during existing employment, the employee should receive something genuinely new in exchange for accepting it. Repackaging an increase or benefit the employee had already received does not solve the consideration problem.
The result was six months of common law notice, with no aggravated damages and no reduction for failure to mitigate.