As we have discussed in various posts, a termination from employment in Ontario can occur in one of two ways; (i) a termination without cause; and (ii) a termination for just cause. As we have noted here, the threshold to establish a termination for cause is very high and the test for establishing just cause was discussed as length by the Supreme Court of Canada in McKinley v. BC Tel 2001 SCC. As noted in McKinley, a contextual interpretation to the employees alleged misconduct is considered in determining whether the employer had just cause for termination, rather that considering the sole instance of alleged misconduct in a vacuum. At paragraph 33:
The courts do not consider an act of misconduct, in and of itself, to be grounds for dismissal without notice, unless it is so grievous that it gives rise to the inference that the employee intends no longer to be bound by the contract of service. There is no definition which sets out, precisely, what conduct, or misconduct, justifies dismissal without notice, and rightly so. Each case must be determined on its own facts. . . .
Thus, according to this reasoning, an employee’s misconduct does not inherently justify dismissal without notice unless it is “so grievous” that it intimates the employee’s abandonment of the intention to remain part of the employment relationship. In drawing this conclusion, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal relied on the following passage in The Law of Dismissal in Canada (2nd ed. 1992), at p. 124:
What constitutes just cause in a specific situation is particularly difficult to enumerate because it depends not only on the category and possible consequences of the misconduct, but also on both the nature of the employment and the status of the employee . . . .
The existence of misconduct sufficient to justify cause cannot be looked at in isolation. Whether misconduct constitutes just cause has to be analyzed in the circumstances of each case. Misconduct must be more serious in order to justify the termination of a more senior, longer‑service employee who has made contributions to the company.
The last point is the most relevant for the purposes of this discussion. Longer service more senior employees who have a demonstrable history of strong performance and dedication with a company will have more latitude when it comes to alleged misconduct. In other words, it is harder to establish just cause for terminating the employment of a senior executive that a short-term entry-level employee.
Where a senior executive is terminated from their employment without cause, the typical factors as enunciated originally in Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd., 1960 CanLII 294 (ON SC) continue to apply; including (i) the age of terminated employee, with employees of more advanced age typically entitled to more severance pay given the challenges for older workers to obtain new jobs; (ii) the years of service with the company, with longer service employees being entitled to more severance on average; (iii) the specialization of the job and the corresponding time it is anticipated for the employee to obtain a new job, with more specialized employees likely to have more difficulty obtain comparable employment, thereby entitling them to enhanced notice periods; among other factors.
For senior executives with long lengths of service, they can typically be entitled to severance pay at the high-end of the range awarded by Courts in Ontario. Other considerations including the payment of variable incentive pay, commissions accrued but unpaid to the termination date, continuation of RRSP or pension plan contribution matching, employee benefits coverage continuation, contributions to legal fees, provisions of letters of reference, and outplacement counselling to assist employees with obtaining a new job. These are all requests made in the ordinary course while negotiating severance packages for terminated employees.