Dispute arises after employer terminated employment contract without cause
The Ontario Court of Appeal has granted leave to intervene to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce (OCC) and refused leave to the Canadian Association of Counsel to Employers (CACE) in an appeal involving an employee’s action for wrongful dismissal.
In Baker v. Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc., 2025 ONCA 578, the appellant employer terminated the respondent employee’s employment contract on a “without cause” basis, then later moved to dismiss the employee’s wrongful dismissal suit.
The motion judge dismissed the employer’s motion upon finding the contract’s termination provisions unenforceable. First, the judge considered the “without cause” termination provision unenforceable because it allowed the employer to terminate employment “at any time,” in breach of Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA).
Next, the judge deemed the contract’s “with cause” provision 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 employer appealed. The OCC and CACE proposed to intervene as friends of the court under rr. 13.02 and 13.03(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. The employer consented to their intervention.
The proposed interveners acknowledged that the appeal involved a private dispute. However, they argued that the issues transcended the parties’ interests and engaged questions of public importance. They allegedly had real, substantial, and identifiable interests in the appeal and perspectives helpful to the proceedings.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed the considerations in the test for leave to intervene: the nature of the appeal, the issues involved, and the likelihood that the proposed interveners would offer useful contributions to resolving the appeal without being unjust to the parties.
Regarding the first two considerations, the appeal court ruled that the appeal raised broad implications, a question about whether the appeal court had to provide more certainty and clarity to the interpretation of termination provisions, and public policy issues, including:
The appeal court added that the appeal called for a more relaxed standard in assessing the intervention motions.
Next, regarding useful contributions, the appeal court accepted that the OCC and CACE were well-recognized organizations that regularly engaged with the broad public policy issues involved in the appeal and could make submissions that would not duplicate the employer’s.
The OCC, as Ontario’s largest chamber of commerce, has 150 local chambers, 60,000 members across all regions and economic sectors, and experience advocating for public policies promoting a competitive economy and prosperity for the province’s communities.
On the other hand, CACE acts for more than 1,400 management-side labour and employment lawyers. The national not-for-profit organization has contributed to developing labour and employment law and policy nationwide.
The appeal court acknowledged that adding these interveners would require the employee to spend more time and expense addressing their distinct arguments. However, the appeal court noted that the employee would have a chance to respond, given that it had not yet set down the appeal for argument.
Of the two proposed interveners, the appeal court decided that the OCC had more substantial and identifiable interests, had experience pertinent to the province, and could better help the appeal court understand the appeal’s implications for Ontario’s employers and employees.
The appeal court deemed it appropriate to permit only one of the proposed interveners to intervene. The appeal court expressed concern that allowing both to intervene in a private dispute would risk perceptions of unfairness and imbalance.
The appeal court noted that the employee was a private individual with limited resources, while the OCC and CACE were large organizations whose submissions significantly overlapped.
