Rudner Law Blog

As we wrap up 2025, employment lawyers have circled January 16, 2026 on their calendars. This is the date when the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “ONCA”) will hear the appeals in the Baker v Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc. (“Baker”), and in Li v Wayfair Canada ULC (“Li”) decisions, two of 2025’s notable termination clause decisions.

If you thought the Driver Inc. controversy was just background noise in the trucking industry, think again. The government is stepping up enforcement in a big way, and businesses that have turned a blind eye to worker misclassification could soon find themselves in the hot seat — facing hefty fines, back payments, and legal exposure. Let’s be clear: this isn’t just a “trucking problem.” It’s a worker misclassification problem, and it’s about to land squarely on the desks of employers and workers alike.

Stuart likes using the line: “just cause is not a lost cause” to support the proposition that while establishing just cause for dismissal is difficult, it is not impossible. The same is not true for termination clauses that purport to define “just cause”, a common law standard.

We often tell our clients that the reasonable notice period is a bridge to another role, not a windfall for a dismissed employee. Notice is meant to support an employee until they find a job, and its length is based on the Court’s estimation of how long it will take the employee to do so.

Significant changes are coming to Employment Insurance (EI) benefits that could have a major impact on you, especially if you’re a long-tenured worker or facing a job loss.

When an employee commences a claim against their employer, or vice-versa, the proper forum in which to bring the lawsuit is an important consideration. For civil claims, this is typically determined by the type of relief sought and the value of the damages being claimed.

In Ontario, the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction in any action for the payment of money or for the recovery of possession of personal property where the amount claimed does not exceed an amount prescribed by regulation. Currently, this limit is set at $35,000.00. Claims above this amount are brought to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

A toxic workplace culture isn’t just bad for morale, it can also create significant legal risk for the employer. In the recent case of Kennedy v. Kingston Area Taxi Licensing Commission, the court found that a persistent hostile work environment constituted constructive dismissal. The result: the employer was held liable for 24 months of notice, the unofficial “maximum” award for common law notice, as well as $25,000 in aggravated damages.

One of your employees has really done it this time. This is not the first time, and you warned the employee that a repeat of this behaviour may result in their dismissal for cause. So, you dismiss the employee for cause. The employee will be gone but the impact of their mistake remains. Can you recoup these funds from the employee, either by withholding the outstanding amount from the employee’s final paycheque or by suing the employee?

As employment lawyers, we frequently caution our clients that determining the appropriate common law notice period for a dismissed employee is “more of an art than a science”. Indeed, while we are familiar with the core relevant factors that courts will consider – such as an employee’s age, length of service, type of position, etc. – there is no formula that can be used to predict this outcome with certainty.

Many employers struggle to ensure that their employment contracts contain legally enforceable termination clauses. What may seem valid and enforceable at the time of signing can later be struck down when it’s tested, often years later, at the time of dismissal. Courts have increasingly invalidated termination clauses for even minor drafting flaws, and the list of reasons for doing so continues to grow. 

If you’ve spent any time on dating apps, you’ll know that a common feature on people’s profiles is often an argument about Oxford commas (which is why I’m partial to the offline world). Jokes aside, comma placement is important, as the Employer in Brocklehurst v. Micco Companies Limited, 2025 NSSC 192 (“Micco”) discovered.

The Rudner Law team is honoured to be voted one of the Canadian HRReporter Readers’ Choice 2025 winners in the Employment & Labour Law Boutique category.