← University
The Employment Contract: What It Must Say and What It Cannot
0 of 4

A standard employment contract template, last revised 4 years ago by a business consultant who was not a lawyer, sits in the shared drive of a small manufacturing business operating in southwestern Ontario. The owner-operator created the template when the company employed only 3 people, adapting language from a sample contract found online and adding provisions that seemed to protect the business's interests. That template has since been used for every hire the company has made, and the workforce has grown to 14 employees across production, administrative, and supervisory roles.

The contract contains a termination clause drafted to limit the company's obligations upon dismissal without cause. The relevant provision states that employees are entitled to receive only the minimum notice or pay in lieu required by applicable legislation, with no additional common law notice or severance. The clause does not reference specific statutory provisions or account for how entitlements might change as employees accumulate service. The same template includes a 90-day probationary period during which, according to the contract's language, either party may end the relationship without notice or compensation. That provision has never been tested, but 2 employees hired within the past 8 months are currently within or have recently completed their stated probationary periods.

The company also employs a production supervisor under a fixed-term contract originally set for 18 months. That contract has been renewed twice, each time for an additional 12-month term, using the same template with only the dates changed. The supervisor is now 7 months into the 3rd consecutive term. The fixed-term contract includes the same termination clause as the indefinite-hire template, and the supervisor has come to expect continued renewals based on conversations with the owner about long-term production planning.

The owner recently received notice from an employment lawyer retained by a former employee who was dismissed without cause after 26 months of service. The employee had been offered 2 weeks of pay in lieu of notice, consistent with the termination clause and the provincial employment standards minimum for that length of service. The demand letter asserts that the termination clause is unenforceable and claims the employee is entitled to substantially greater compensation at common law. The owner has asked legal counsel to review not only that specific dispute but the entire employment contract template that the company has been using, raising questions about whether the termination provisions, probationary language, and fixed-term arrangements can withstand scrutiny and what exposure the company faces across its current workforce.

Probationary Periods, Fixed-Term Contracts, and the Traps They Create

Employment relationships often begin with uncertainty on both sides. The employer wonders whether the new hire will perform as expected, integrate with existing staff, and justify the investment made in recruitment and training. The employee wonders whether the job will match the description, whether the workplace culture will suit them, and whether the role will provide the stability and growth they seek. Probationary periods emerged as a legal mechanism to address this mutual uncertainty, creating a window during which both parties could evaluate the relationship before committing to its full legal consequences. Fixed-term contracts serve a different but related purpose, establishing employment relationships with predetermined end dates, theoretically providing clarity about duration and limiting the obligations that flow from indefinite employment. Both arrangements appear straightforward in concept but have generated considerable legal complexity in Canadian employment law, creating traps that catch unwary employers with surprising frequency and significant financial consequences.

The probationary period rests on a simple premise that seems intuitively fair. During an initial period of employment, typically three to six months, the employer retains the right to assess the employee's suitability for the position and to terminate the relationship with minimal notice if the employee proves unsuitable. The legal foundation for this reduced notice obligation varies across Canadian jurisdictions but shares a common thread. Employment standards legislation in most provinces establishes minimum notice periods or pay in lieu of notice that employers must provide upon termination, but these statutory minimums typically do not apply until an employee has completed a threshold period of continuous employment. In British Columbia, as of the date of authorship, the Employment Standards Act requires employers to provide one week of notice only after three consecutive months of employment. Alberta's Employment Standards Code similarly requires one week of notice after ninety days. Ontario's Employment Standards Act, 2000 imposes the first statutory notice requirement of one week after three months of continuous employment. Saskatchewan follows a comparable pattern under the Saskatchewan Employment Act. These statutory frameworks create a foundation upon which probationary provisions in employment contracts can build, but the relationship between statutory minimums and common law notice entitlements is where many employers stumble.

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 $79 course — purchasing unlocks it, or sign in if you already have access.