Les Limites De L'arr't Matthews : Les Tribunaux De L'Ontario Précisent Les Droits Aux Incitatifs D'un Employé Congédié

• Published date: 21 April 2021
• Subject Matter: Employment and HR, Contract of Employment, Retirement, Superannuation & Pensions, Unfair/ Wrongful Dismissal, Employee Benefits & Compensation, Employee Rights/ Labour Relations
• Law Firm: Stikeman Elliott LLP
• Author: Ms Lucy Carruthers

Comme nous l'avons mentionné dans notre billet précédent, la Cour supr'me du Canada (la ' CSC ') a récemment affirmé que, lors d'un congédiement sans motif, les employés ont à première vue droit, pendant la période de préavis raisonnable, à tous les revenus, prestations et primes qui faisaient partie de leur rémunération, et qu'ils auront donc droit à des dommages-intér'ts pour la perte de cette rémunération, à moins que les modalités du contrat de travail ou du régime de primes ou d'avantages aient pour effet de supprimer ou de limiter clairement ce droit : Matthews c. Ocean Nutrition Canada Ltd., 2020 CSC 26 (' Matthews ').

Ce billet est disponible en anglais seulement.

As discussed in our previous post, the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") recently affirmed that, upon a termination without cause, employees are prima facie entitled during their reasonable notice period to any income, benefits or bonuses that were part of their compensation, and will therefore be entitled to damages for the loss of such compensation, unless the terms of the employment contract or bonus/benefit plan unambiguously take away or limit that entitlement: Matthews v. Ocean Nutrition Canada Ltd., 2020 SCC 26 ("Matthews").

Two recent Ontario cases provide clarity for employers as to (a) what equity entitlements are considered income, benefits or bonuses for the purpose of this test, and (b) what language is sufficiently clear and unambiguous to take away or limit an employee's entitlement to income, benefits or bonuses during the reasonable notice period.

Shareholdings Are Not Necessarily Employment Entitlements

The decision In Mikelsteins v. Morrison Hershfield Limited, 2021 ONCA 155 ("Mikelsteins") represents the first reconsideration on the issue of termination entitlements in the incentive compensation context by Ontario's Court of Appeal ("ONCA") in accordance with Matthews.

Background

Mr. Mikelsteins (the "Employee") was one of a select group of employees of Morrison Hershfield Limited (the "Employer") who were invited to purchase shares of Morrison Hershfield Group Inc., the parent company of the Employer. The Employee had purchased shares with his own funds during his employment and had shareholdings at the time his employment was terminated without cause. The shareholders' agreement provided for an automatic transfer notice 30 days following the termination of employment (which was not defined) for fair market value, and the shares were repurchased in accordance with...