Ontario court updates job contract rules
The Ontario Court of Appeal has clarified how courts should interpret termination clauses in employment contracts. The ruling states that phrases like “at any time” or “for any reason” do not automatically violate provincial employment law.
Court resolves conflicting lower-court decisions
The decision, released August 6, 2026, stems from two consolidated appeals—Baker v. Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc. and Li v. Wayfair Canada ULC—that had produced opposite outcomes in lower courts. Both cases involved employment contracts allowing termination without cause “at any time” or “at any time and for any reason,” while promising only the minimum notice or pay required under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA).
The appeals court unanimously upheld the clauses. Judges rejected arguments that the language could be read to permit terminations prohibited by statute, such as those during protected leaves or as reprisals. The decision establishes that such phrases reflect a mutual intention to allow valid terminations, not an attempt to bypass legal restrictions.
A three-part framework now guides how termination provisions should be evaluated. Courts must interpret contracts to protect workers but should still determine the parties’ objective intentions based on the full agreement. Ambiguity should not be manufactured where none reasonably exists, and the meaning of a clause depends on its context rather than isolated phrases.
The decision overturned a lower-court ruling in Baker that had struck down a termination clause. The trial judge had reasoned that the phrase “at any time” could theoretically apply to statutorily protected scenarios. The Court of Appeal found this interpretation strained, noting that the contract also included a “Minimum Standards” clause ensuring ESA compliance.
Frederick Baker, a 71-year-old controller at Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc., had argued his termination clause was unenforceable. His contract allowed termination “at any time, without just cause,” with only ESA-mandated notice or pay. When dismissed in March 2023, he sued for wrongful dismissal, claiming the clause violated the law. The appeals court disagreed, ruling that the contract’s repeated references to ESA minimums demonstrated compliance.
In Li v. Wayfair, Song Li’s contract contained nearly identical language. A different trial judge had upheld it, finding that the contract’s clear reference to ESA minimums resolved any ambiguity. The Court of Appeal endorsed this reasoning, stating that courts should not parse individual words in isolation.
Related: Court Rejects Stay on Immigration Rule Change
With-cause provisions receive clearer guidance
The ruling also addressed with-cause termination clauses, which define “cause” more broadly than the ESA’s “wilful misconduct” standard. The court confirmed such clauses are enforceable if they explicitly preserve an employee’s minimum ESA entitlements. This overturned a lower-court decision in Baker that had required employers to explain the difference between contractual cause and statutory wilful misconduct within the contract itself.
The court did not revisit its 2020 decision in Waksdale v. Swegon North America Inc., which had invalidated termination clauses where the with-cause provision violated the ESA. In both Baker and Li, the with-cause provisions were found compliant because they preserved ESA minimums.
For employers, the decision reduces some of the uncertainty surrounding termination clauses. The emphasis on contextual interpretation means contracts with clear references to ESA compliance—such as “Minimum Standards” clauses—are more likely to be upheld. However, the ruling still allows challenges if a clause’s overall effect undermines statutory protections.
Disputes may continue, but the focus has shifted away from hyper-literal readings of contract language. Courts will now examine whether the contract as a whole reflects an intention to comply with the ESA, rather than fixating on individual phrases. This change could lower the risk of inconsistent rulings, though some uncertainty will remain.
Employers with existing contracts containing similar language can take comfort, but the decision also warns that poorly drafted clauses may still face scrutiny. The court’s message is clear: termination provisions must be read in their full context, not in isolation.
The ruling aligns with recent regulatory changes in other jurisdictions. New trade rules for electronic systems in Indonesia also emphasize clarity in contractual terms, reflecting a broader trend toward reducing ambiguity in employment and commercial agreements.
