Termination provisions deemed unenforceable for failure to comply with Employment Standards Act
The Ontario Superior Court found an employee entitled to reasonable notice of eight months and found the employment contract’s termination provisions unenforceable because they were not compliant with or were at least ambiguous about complying with the Employment Standards Act.
For around eight years, the plaintiff in Boyle v. Salesforce.com, 2025 ONSC 2580, worked for Salesforce.com Canada Corporation, the defendant in this case. He was a senior success signature engineer - core. The employment contract had a termination clause seeking to limit entitlements upon termination.
On Jan. 4, 2023, Salesforce emailed the plaintiff a letter to notify him about his termination on Mar. 24, 2023. Salesforce laid off around 10 percent of its workforce at that time. Since Salesforce sent the email while the plaintiff was on holiday, he learned about his termination through his colleague’s text message stating he had been deactivated on Slack.
The plaintiff moved for summary judgment of his claim alleging wrongful dismissal against Salesforce. He argued that the termination clause was unenforceable because it failed to comply with Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA).
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the plaintiff summary judgment ordering Salesforce to pay the following, minus any advanced payments:
Given that the court considered the termination provisions unenforceable, it found the plaintiff entitled to payment instead of reasonable notice.
The court noted that Salesforce chose to use a single contract for employees in multiple jurisdictions. The court held that this choice caused ambiguity in the documents that Salesforce required the plaintiff to sign before hiring.
Salesforce claimed it could terminate employment at will. Salesforce said the termination provisions would not apply to certain non-US jurisdictions, and employees could consult its legal department if they felt uncertain.
The court ruled that employees in Ontario had no practical way to know which terms would apply to their termination when signing the contract.
“It is impractical to expect a potential employee, who has not yet started employment, to consult the future employer’s lawyer before signing an employment agreement to understand what kind of misconduct, if any, is cause for termination,” wrote Justice Lisa Brownstone for the court.
The court then deemed an 11-month notice period appropriate upon considering the relevant cases, which suggested a range of nine to 15 months depending on the applicable factors in Bardal v Globe & Mail Ltd, 1960 CanLII 294 (ONSC).
However, the court granted Salesforce’s request for a three-month reduction based on the plaintiff’s refusal to produce his notice of assessment during the mitigation period.
The court found no acceptable reason for this refusal and found Salesforce entitled to proper evidence of the plaintiff’s income during the mitigation period, which was a significant issue in this case. Thus, the court drew an adverse inference that the document that the plaintiff refused to produce would not support his income figures.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s request for moral, aggravated, or punitive damages or damages based on an alleged breach of the duty of good faith in contractual relations.
The court refused to find Salesforce untruthful, misleading, unduly insensitive, or unreasonable. The court saw no breach of good faith or fair dealing and no marked departure from the ordinary standards of decent behaviour.
The court noted that Salesforce might have acted imperfectly while laying off numerous employees. However, the court said Salesforce did not act in a way that would justify an award of moral, aggravated, or punitive damages.
The court also rejected the plaintiff’s request for special damages for expenses incurred in his mitigation efforts. The court said the plaintiff failed to show his upskilling efforts were necessary to find employment or that he incurred these expenses due to Salesforce’s failure to give him reasonable notice.
