← University
Wrongful Dismissal and Constructive Dismissal
0 of 9

A family-owned manufacturing company in southwestern Ontario had employed a production manager for 14 years when the ownership passed from the founder to the founder's adult children following the founder's retirement. The production manager had joined the company at age 38, working initially as a floor supervisor before being promoted to the management role 9 years into his tenure. His responsibilities had expanded over time to include scheduling, quality control oversight, and direct supervision of 22 production staff. The employment relationship had never been governed by a written contract, and the company had no formal policies addressing termination procedures, severance entitlements, or the circumstances under which employment might end.

Within 8 months of the ownership transition, the new leadership decided to restructure operations. The restructuring plan called for consolidating the production manager's role with that of the logistics coordinator, creating a single position with a significantly altered scope of duties, a different reporting structure, and a reduction in supervisory responsibility from 22 staff to 6. When presented with the proposed changes, the production manager was given 2 weeks to accept the new role or face termination. The new position would have required him to report to a newly hired operations director rather than directly to ownership, would have eliminated his quality control responsibilities entirely, and would have reduced his annual compensation by approximately 18 percent.

The production manager declined the restructured position and was terminated without cause. The company offered him 8 weeks of pay in lieu of notice, calculated on the basis of the statutory minimum under provincial employment standards legislation, plus an additional 2 weeks as a gesture of goodwill. The offer was conditional on his signing a release that would extinguish any further claims arising from his employment or its termination. The production manager was given 5 business days to accept the offer, with no suggestion that he seek independent legal advice before signing.

The production manager did not sign the release within the deadline. Instead, he retained employment counsel, who sent a demand letter asserting that the offer was grossly inadequate given his length of service, age at termination (then 52), and the specialized nature of his role in a niche manufacturing sector. The demand letter also alleged that the proposed restructuring itself had constituted constructive dismissal before the formal termination occurred. The company's response denied any wrongdoing and maintained that the severance offer was reasonable. The dispute escalated to litigation, requiring the company to defend its termination process, justify its notice calculation, and respond to claims for damages that extended well beyond the initial offer.

Case Study: How a Wrongful Dismissal Claim Unfolded and What It Cost

Wrongful dismissal represents one of the most significant financial and operational risks that Canadian business owners face, yet many entrepreneurs and organizational leaders only come to understand its true implications after finding themselves on the receiving end of a demand letter or statement of claim. The concept emerges from a fundamental principle embedded in Canadian employment law: when an employer terminates an employee without just cause, the employer owes that employee reasonable notice of the termination or compensation in lieu of that notice. This principle exists across all Canadian jurisdictions, though its precise application varies between the common law provinces and Quebec, where the Civil Code of Quebec establishes the governing framework. The purpose of reasonable notice is to provide employees with sufficient time and resources to find comparable employment, recognizing the inherent power imbalance in the employment relationship and the devastating financial consequences that sudden job loss can impose on working Canadians and their families.

The distinction between lawful termination and wrongful dismissal often confuses business owners who believe that their statutory obligations represent the full extent of their liability. In British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and most other common law provinces, employment standards legislation establishes minimum notice periods or termination pay requirements that increase based on years of service. As of the date of authorship, these minimums typically range from one week after short periods of employment to eight weeks for employees with lengthy tenure, though the precise thresholds differ by jurisdiction. However, these statutory minimums represent a floor, not a ceiling. At common law, employees are entitled to reasonable notice, which courts assess based on factors including the employee's age, length of service, character of employment, and availability of similar employment given the employee's experience, training, and qualifications. Common law reasonable notice periods frequently exceed statutory minimums by substantial margins, sometimes reaching twenty-four months or more in exceptional circumstances. Quebec's framework under the Civil Code of Quebec similarly requires reasonable notice, with courts in that province applying analogous considerations when determining what constitutes adequate notice in any particular case. The gap between what employers believe they owe under employment standards legislation and what they actually owe at common law represents the core financial exposure in wrongful dismissal litigation.

That’s the free preview

You’ve reached the end of what’s open to read. The rest of this lesson is part of a $249 course — purchasing unlocks it, or sign in if you already have access.