Sophistication of the employee does not affect legality of termination provision

▤ Summary

In this case the Plaintiff was not only very sophisticated and was represented by counsel throughout the negotiation process, but this employment contract was part of a larger corporate deal. [53] As such, and notwithstanding the relative sophistication of the plaintiff and his representation by counsel in the Share Purchase, in my view there is no compelling reason why TCN should be permitted to rely on termination provisions that do not comply with the ESA [55] While, as noted, I appreciate that these principles start from a presumed power imbalance, they strike me as providing guidance which, generally speaking, is not onerous for employers to follow. While Livshin may be more sophisticated than many employees, and notwithstanding that he was represented by counsel, I can see no reason why the clause at issue had to be drafted in a way that on its face contravenes the ESA. Further, in my view the goal that employers be encouraged to draft clauses that comply with the ESA trumps the suggestion that Livshin may have been better able than many or most employees to recognize the potential peril. TCN’s argument that Livshin’s representation by counsel should result in him being taken to understand the potential pitfalls of the Employment Agreement at issue here might be turned back on TCN to suggest that an employer, represented by counsel, particularly in the period after the Court of Appeal’s decision in Fred Deeley, ought to know better than to draft a termination provision that fails to comply with the ESA.

▦ Linked Companies

First Reference

$1M to $5M