Publication
“AI and sustainability - cure or curse?”
While AI can help resolve data issues in sustainable investing, it can create problems such as information breaches and inherent bias in data.
Author:
Canada | Publication | March 13, 2023
Termination clauses in employment agreements may be unenforceable if an employee’s role has expanded significantly over time. To prevent this outcome employers should ensure their agreements anticipate job changes, and they should confirm the continued application of agreements as changes occur.
Termination clauses are often the most important terms in an employment agreement from the employer’s perspective. They set out the compensation an employee is entitled to upon termination, limiting employer liability and minimizing litigation risk when employment ends.
These clauses are vulnerable to a common law concept known as the “substratum doctrine.” This doctrine prevents an employer from relying on a termination clause if there have been “fundamental expansions” in an employee’s duties and compensation after the employment agreement was first entered into.
Courts apply this doctrine based on the view that termination clauses agreed to when an employee was in a smaller role should not apply when the employee has moved on to a much larger role. The underlying nature of the job – the “substratum” – has changed. The employment agreement terms were negotiated for the smaller role, not the expanded role, and it is not reasonable to continue applying them.
The substratum doctrine presents a problem for employers who foster employee growth over the long term. If steps are not taken to prevent its application, unexpected liability may arise when employment ends and the employer discovers there are no longer enforceable contractual limits on employee termination entitlements.
In Celestini v Shoplogix Inc., the Court of Appeal for Ontario confirmed that an employee’s termination clause was unenforceable under the substratum doctrine.
Mr. Celestini was employed by Shoplogix as chief technology officer from 2005 until his termination in 2017. During that time Mr. Celestini’s job title never changed, but his duties expanded from his core CTO role to include sales, marketing, managing employees and obtaining investment funds.
Mr. Celestini’s 2005 employment agreement had a termination clause providing for 12 months of notice. He argued his role had “fundamentally expanded” and, under the substratum doctrine, his termination clause no longer applied. He sought damages based on an increased notice period. The Court of Appeal agreed and upheld an extended notice period of 18 months.
The Court of Appeal observed:
The substratum doctrine is a question of substance, not form. As in this case, courts will examine changes in duties and compensation, and will not limit the inquiry to job titles.
Employers can take steps to prevent application of the substratum doctrine:
Employee promotions or increases in compensation are also effective consideration for changes the employer may wish to make to terms of employment. Employers may consider entering into new employment agreements as employment evolves.
The author would like to thank Shanika Gordon, articling student, for her help in preparing this legal update.
Publication
While AI can help resolve data issues in sustainable investing, it can create problems such as information breaches and inherent bias in data.
Publication
It is widely accepted that 2023 was one of the worst years in recent memory for M&A activity.
Publication
The ongoing conflicts and further geopolitical tensions in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, coupled with upcoming elections in a number of key countries including the US and the UK, make 2024 challenging to predict what impact this will have on the insurance sector.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023