As this post is going up on December 23, 2025, it seemed appropriate to tie this into the impending holiday break with a title borrowing from some of the words in Silent Night.
Applying the title to the current state of business law, well, maybe it’s a “stretch goal” when it comes to employment law for employers, but hear me out … I think 2026 is going to be an excellent year for employers.
If you’re an employer who has had to deal with a wrongful dismissal law suit, and our firm didn’t draft your employment agreement, you may have learned an expensive lesson that the Ontario Courts have issued many judgments picking apart the wording of these agreements in what feels like, to many, an attempt to award everyone one month in lieu of notice if they are terminated without cause.
This matter may be heading to a (hopefully) final decision in the “saga” of Baker v. Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc. In this case, the Plaintiff succeeded on their motion for summary judgment against their former employer and had their employment agreement tossed out that would have limited their notice to the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and substituted for common law notice.
The monetary difference between ESA and common law notice is often one week per year of employment vs. one month per year of employment.
The motions Judge held that the “without cause” termination provision was unenforceable because it allowed the employer to terminate employment “at any time,” in breach of the ESA. The motions Judge then held that the contract’s “with cause” provision (the employee was terminated without cause) also unenforceable since it allowed the employer to terminate employment “at any time” for just cause and failed to explain the distinction between the lower “just cause” standard and the higher “wilful misconduct” standard, which would deprive an employee of ESA entitlements.
The motions Judge noted in the final paragraph of the decision,
“I have no doubt that the defendant, advised by capable counsel, intended only to comply with the ESA. While I take no issue with the law and logic of cases such as Wood and Rossman , they set an exacting standard that many employers and knowledgeable counsel have failed to attain despite their good faith and best efforts.”
The employer appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce successfully sought permission to “intervene” on the Appeal to help the appeal court understand the appeal’s implications for Ontario’s employers and employees.
So, now, hopefully, we’re going to have the nitpicking settled for once and for all, well, for a while at least, and all will be calm and bright.
Of course, if our firm prepared your employment agreement, none of the problems that led to Baker v. Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc. are in it, so you’re already calm and bright!
Inga B. Andriessen, JD, Managing Lawyer