Canadian legal professionals Consulted Most Employment Law Cases and Constitutional Challenges on CanLII in July.
The five most-viewed decisions reflect ongoing tensions between contractual freedom and statutory minimums, with two Supreme Court of Canada cases drawing significant attention alongside appellate decisions reshaping workplace obligations.
Related: Monday’s Mix Brings Fresh Beats to City
Ontario Court of Appeal Reshapes Termination Clause Analysis in Employment Contract Dispute
The top decision, Baker v. Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc., involved an employment contract for a controller and head of finance position. The employer terminated the employee without cause and offered enhanced pay in lieu only if a release was signed. Litigation followed over whether the termination clauses violated the Employment Standards Act.
The employee sued for wrongful dismissal after receiving only ESA minimum notice pay. The Ontario Superior Court allowed the claim, finding both termination provisions unenforceable. The employer’s appeal argued the motion judge misinterpreted the contract and misapplied precedent.
Related: Judgments summarized on SOQUIJ this Sunday
By Monahan J.A. (Zarnett J.A. and Rahman J.A. concurring): Employment contracts require interpretation attentive to employee vulnerability, while still applying modern contractual interpretation to ascertain objective intention in context. A clause is ambiguous only where competing interpretations are reasonable in the context of the whole agreement. The “at any time” wording cannot reasonably express an intention to permit termination contrary to statutory prohibitions, given the clause’s express linkage to ESA minimums. The contract’s minimum-standards clause requiring ESA compliance “at all times” confirms the termination right operates only within ESA limits, including ss. 53 and 74 of the ESA. A literal reading that would imply intentional exposure to reinstatement, “make whole” remedies, offences, and penalties is inconsistent with objective intention and common sense. The “with cause” clause aligns with ESA minimum entitlements because it expressly preserves any ESA “minimum compensation or entitlements,” notwithstanding a broader contractual “just cause” definition. The motion judge’s “potential unfairness” rationale fails where the clause expressly states ESA minimum entitlements remain payable, and referential incorporation of ESA entitlements is valid. Reconsideration of Waksdale is declined because the termination provisions comply with the ESA. (Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)
Supreme Court Declares Section 66 of COIA Unconstitutional in Democracy Watch v. Canada
After years of litigation, Democracy Watch v. Canada reached the Supreme Court over a challenge to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner’s findings. The advocacy organization sought to challenge a report finding the then Prime Minister did not contravene the Conflict of Interest Act.
Related: Wednesday’s Top CanLII Cases for July 2026
The Attorney General moved to strike, arguing lack of standing and a bar under section 66 of the COIA. The Federal Court of Appeal had previously dismissed the application, citing adequate alternative political remedies.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and declared section 66 of the COIA of no force and effect insofar as it bars review on questions of fact and law. The matter returns to the Federal Court of Appeal for further proceedings on the remaining issues.
