Maurice Vaturi
Senior Counsel
Employer-Side Practice
Toronto Employment Lawyer for Employerscompliance, strategy, and defence
Trusted by employers across the GTA
For employers
What employers are actually worried about in 2026
If you run a business in Ontario, employment law is not the legal area you wanted to spend your time learning. You hired good people, you treat them fairly, and you have always assumed that as long as you act in good faith, the law will be on your side. Most of the time, that is true. The cases where it is not true — where a small mistake produces a six-figure liability — are the cases that keep employers up at night.
That is what this page is about. It is written for the people who actually make hiring, firing, and HR decisions: business owners, CEOs, COOs, HR directors, in-house counsel, and the people who have to call us when something goes wrong. We will not tell you that “every situation is unique” and end every paragraph with “consult a lawyer.” We will tell you what the law actually says, what the most common mistakes are, what cases like yours typically settle for, and where to focus your effort to reduce risk.
VC Lawyers represents employers across the GTA in every aspect of the employment relationship — from drafting initial contracts to defending wrongful dismissal claims, from conducting workplace investigations to managing mass terminations during restructuring. We act exclusively for the employer in any given file. We never run plaintiff-side cases against the same client we are advising. Our employee-side practice operates separately, with internal screening protocols ensuring there is never a conflict of interest.
Phase 1 — Hiring & Onboarding
The cheapest phase to manage well, the most expensive phase to get wrong
A poorly drafted employment contract signed at the start of an employment relationship can cost an employer six figures eight years later when the relationship ends. Conversely, a well-drafted contract — properly executed, properly explained, properly updated — can limit termination obligations to ESA minimums and prevent constructive dismissal claims even during major restructuring.
- 01
Using a template contract without legal review
A free contract you found online is, almost without exception, going to fail post-Waksdale. - 02
Treating the offer letter as a contract
Offer letters are usually too short and ambiguous to limit employer liability. They need to be supplemented or replaced by a full written agreement before the employee starts work. - 03
Failing to provide consideration for new contracts with existing employees
If you ask an existing employee to sign a new contract, you must provide “fresh consideration” — a raise, a bonus, a promotion, additional vacation. Otherwise, the new contract is not binding. - 04
Misclassifying employees as independent contractors
This is one of the most expensive mistakes employers make. The CRA, the Ministry of Labour, and the courts apply the Wiebe Door test (control, ownership of tools, chance of profit, risk of loss, integration into the business) plus the more recent “dependent contractor” doctrine to recharacterize relationships. The bill includes back-payment of CPP, EI, vacation pay, holiday pay, plus full common law severance — sometimes years' worth. - 05
Forgetting to update contracts after the Working for Workers Act, 2021
If you have non-compete clauses for non-executive employees signed after October 25, 2021, those clauses are void by statute.
Phase 2 — Active Employment
The day-to-day decisions that accumulate into legal exposure
The legal stakes during active employment are usually lower than at termination, but they accumulate. An employer who has handled performance management poorly for two years before terminating an employee will face a much harder defence than an employer who documented every step.
- 01
Verbal warnings that are never documented
If you cannot prove the warning happened, it did not happen — at least for purposes of just cause. - 02
Ignoring harassment complaints or conducting biased investigations
OHSA requires investigation of all workplace harassment complaints. A failure to investigate, or a botched investigation, creates independent liability that often exceeds the underlying harassment claim. - 03
Failing to accommodate disabilities
The duty to accommodate runs to “undue hardship” — a high bar. Routine refusals of accommodation requests, particularly for mental health conditions, drive a substantial portion of HRTO claims. - 04
Allowing managers to discipline based on personal animus
A discipline decision that is influenced by a manager's personal dislike of an employee — particularly where the dislike correlates with a protected ground — creates discrimination liability even if the discipline itself is technically justified. - 05
Using probation periods incorrectly
Probation periods do not eliminate ESA notice (after the first three months). They also do not eliminate human rights protections. Many employers wrongly believe they can terminate “during probation” with no legal exposure.
Phase 3 — Termination & Departure
Where most employer-side litigation actually happens
The vast majority of wrongful dismissal claims, severance disputes, constructive dismissal allegations, and post-employment disputes (non-solicitation breaches, confidentiality violations, defamation) trace back to Phase 3.
- 01
Termination clause not enforceable
Post-Waksdale, any termination clause that fails to comply with the ESA in any respect — including the for-cause provision, even when terminating without cause — invalidates the entire clause and exposes the employer to common law notice. - 02
Inadequate severance offer
Offering ESA minimums to a long-tenured employee in a senior role is asking for a lawsuit. The cost of negotiating a fair package upfront is far less than the cost of litigation later. - 03
Trying to terminate “for cause” without sufficient evidence
Just cause is the “capital punishment” of employment law and requires a high evidentiary threshold. Failed just cause attempts often result in aggravated and punitive damages on top of regular common law notice. - 04
Breaching the duty of good faith in the manner of dismissal
Honda Canada v Keays (2008 SCC 39) confirmed that employers owe a duty of good faith in how they execute terminations. Public humiliation, false allegations, and refusing to provide reasonable employment references can lead to additional damages. - 05
Releasing the wrong information about the termination
What you tell remaining employees, what you tell the departing employee's professional contacts, and what you put in employment references are all legal landmines.
Before you terminate
Get the strategy right before you deliver the news
A termination meeting that goes wrong creates litigation exposure. A termination meeting that goes right almost never does. The difference is preparation — the seven steps below that we walk every employer through before any termination.
The first 30-minute consultation is free, confidential, and often resolves the immediate strategic questions on the spot.
Termination playbook
Seven steps to a defensible termination
These are the steps we walk every employer through before any termination, whether for cause or without cause. Following the playbook substantially reduces the risk of post-termination claims.
Identify the legal basis for termination
Without cause — most common. No specific allegation against the employee. Employer simply ends the relationship for business reasons. Notice/severance owed under ESA and (potentially) common law.
With cause (just cause / summary dismissal) — rare. Employer alleges misconduct so serious that immediate termination is justified. No notice or severance owed if proven.
End of fixed-term contract — termination by expiry. No notice owed if contract genuinely ends. (Watch for “fixed-term contracts” that are functionally indefinite — courts often treat these as indefinite.)
Frustration of contract — when fundamental change (such as long-term disability with no realistic return) makes contract performance impossible. Notice obligations limited but not eliminated.
Calculate notice entitlement
If terminating without cause, calculate ESA termination pay (1 week per year, max 8 weeks for service over 8 years), ESA severance pay (1 week per year pro-rated, max 26 weeks — only if employer's payroll is $2.5M+ globally and employee has 5+ years of service), and ESA benefit continuation through the statutory notice period.
Common law notice is calculated using Bardal factors. Rule of thumb: approximately 1 month per year of service, with adjustments for age, position, and job market conditions. Soft ceiling of 24 months. Aggravated damages risk if termination is conducted in bad faith. Moral damages risk for mental distress caused by manner of dismissal.
Decide on working notice vs. pay in lieu
Working notice — employee continues to work during the notice period. Cost-effective but operationally disruptive. Must be in writing and specify the date.
Pay in lieu — employer pays the equivalent of the notice period as a lump sum or salary continuation. Employee leaves immediately. Higher cash cost but operational benefits.
Hybrid — partial working notice plus partial pay in lieu. Often the best of both worlds.
Draft the termination letter
The termination letter is a legal document. It should include: effective date of termination; reason for termination (vague language for without cause, specific allegations for with cause); calculation of notice and severance entitlements; treatment of accrued vacation, bonuses, and benefits; reference to the release agreement; logistics (return of property, final paycheck, COBRA-equivalent benefit options); reasonable deadline for response (NOT the deadline that some employers impose — courts have repeatedly criticized 24- or 48-hour deadlines).Prepare the release
A release is a contract by which the employee gives up future legal claims in exchange for the severance package. Key elements: consideration — the severance amount must exceed ESA minimums (otherwise the release is unenforceable as to common law claims); scope — what claims are being released (typically all employment-related claims); carve-outs — claims that cannot be released (statutory entitlements like unpaid wages and severance to the ESA minimum, human rights complaints in some circumstances, criminal proceedings); confidentiality — typically mutual, preventing both parties from disparaging each other; non-solicitation reaffirmation if applicable; reference letter commitment — employers often agree to provide a neutral or positive reference as part of the package.Conduct the termination meeting properly
The termination meeting itself can create or destroy legal exposure. Best practices: two employer representatives present (one to deliver the news, one as witness); privacy — never terminate someone in front of colleagues; brevity — deliver the news clearly, do not engage in extended debate; compassion — acknowledge the difficulty of the situation; practical information — when does termination take effect, when is final pay, how to return property, who to contact with questions; avoid arguing about reasons — once the decision is made, debating it serves no one; provide written documents at the meeting (termination letter, release, severance calculation); allow the employee time to review — never demand same-day signature.Manage post-termination issues
Communications to remaining employees — tightly controlled, factual, non-disparaging; reference requests — pre-agreed neutral or positive language; property recovery — laptops, phones, access cards, files; account deactivation — email, systems, building access (typically same day for terminations, with prior arrangement for working notice); final pay — within ESA timelines (next regular pay or 7 days from termination, whichever is later); records retention — 3 years minimum under ESA.
Defending wrongful dismissal
The five key defences employers can raise
When a wrongful dismissal claim is filed, the defence usually rests on one or more of these five doctrines. Selecting the right defence early shapes everything that follows in the litigation.
Enforceable termination clause
Limits damages to ESA. The strongest defence if the contract holds.Just cause
If the employer can prove serious misconduct, no notice owed. Heavy evidentiary burden.Mitigation
Employees have a duty to seek alternative employment. If the employee did not actively job search, damages can be reduced.After-acquired cause
Misconduct discovered after termination can sometimes justify the termination retroactively.Resignation
If the employee genuinely resigned, no severance owed. Watch for constructive dismissal claims masquerading as resignations.
Workplace investigations
When an investigation is required
OHSA imposes a statutory duty to investigate harassment and violence complaints. But many other situations also benefit from a formal investigation — and skipping one is a frequent source of liability.
Any harassment or violence complaint
Statutory requirement under OHSA section 32.0.7.Allegations that, if true, would justify termination for cause
Investigation provides the evidentiary record needed to defend the eventual termination decision.Allegations against management or executives
Internal HR cannot investigate their own superiors without conflict — external investigators are usually required.Complaints involving multiple complainants or potential class issues
Pattern allegations require systematic investigation to identify scope.Situations where the complainant is at risk of retaliation
Investigations must protect the complainant from reprisal during and after.Cases that may lead to litigation or media attention
A defensible investigation is often the difference between containment and escalation.
Investigation errors
What makes an investigation legally indefensible
A bad investigation creates more liability than the underlying complaint. The errors below show up repeatedly in HRTO and civil court decisions setting aside investigation findings.
Investigator lacks training or independence
Untrained or biased investigators produce reports that won't survive judicial scrutiny.Investigation is unduly slow
Months instead of weeks. Delays themselves create reprisal liability.Witnesses are not interviewed
Skipping relevant witnesses leaves gaps that defendants exploit.Documents are not preserved
Email, Slack, file system records — all need to be preserved at the start.Findings are not supported by evidence
Conclusions must trace back to specific evidence, not impressions.Reports are influenced by management preferences
An investigation that bends to internal politics is no investigation at all.Confidentiality is not maintained
Leaks during investigation create reprisal claims and reputational damage.Complainant is retaliated against during or after investigation
Reprisal is independently illegal under OHSA — and creates a claim larger than the underlying complaint.Findings are not communicated to the parties
Both complainant and respondent are entitled to know the outcome of an investigation involving them.
Mass terminations
Strategy for restructuring and downsizing
When 50 or more employees are terminated within a four-week window, the ESA imposes additional notice (8, 12, or 16 weeks depending on size). Mass terminations also trigger heightened HRTO scrutiny if any selection criteria correlate with protected grounds.
Selection criteria must be defensible
Any selection criteria that correlate with a protected ground (age, disability, family status, etc.) will trigger heightened scrutiny under HRTO. Performance-based selection requires solid documentation.Voluntary departure programs
Offering enhanced severance packages for voluntary resignations can reduce the involuntary termination count below the mass termination threshold and also reduce total severance liability.Phased terminations
Spreading terminations across multiple time periods can avoid mass termination triggers (but may create perception issues).Redeployment
Offering positions at other locations or roles where possible reduces both the legal exposure and the human cost.WARN-equivalent obligations
Ontario does not have a federal WARN Act equivalent, but advance notice expectations are similar in practice.
Key metrics
In the numbers
- 30-minute initial consultation
- Free
- HR compliance packages
- Fixed-fee
- Monthly retainer arrangements
- $1.5K+
- Languages spoken at the firm
- 8+
30-minute initial consultation
HR compliance packages
Monthly retainer arrangements
Languages spoken at the firm
Fee structures
Predictable, transparent employer-side fee packages
Employers want certainty about cost. Our employer-side fee structures are designed around that — fixed-fee compliance packages, hourly litigation defence with budget caps, monthly retainers for ongoing access, and pay-as-you-go consultations for one-off questions.
Fixed-Fee HR Compliance Packages
For employers who want certainty about cost, we offer fixed-fee packages including: contract refresh — review and update of all existing employment contracts ($5,000–$15,000 depending on number of contracts and complexity); HR policy package — full set of compliant workplace policies including harassment, accommodation, electronic monitoring, right to disconnect ($5,000–$10,000); compliance audit — comprehensive review of all employment practices for legal compliance ($3,000–$10,000); manager training — half-day or full-day sessions on termination, performance management, harassment investigation ($2,500–$7,500).
Hourly Litigation Defence
Wrongful dismissal claims, HRTO defences, complex investigations — billed hourly with regular updates and budget caps where appropriate. Hourly rates typically range from $350 to $650 depending on lawyer seniority and complexity of work.Monthly Retainer / On-Call Counsel
For employers who want continuous access to employment law advice without retaining an in-house lawyer, we offer monthly retainer arrangements. Typical retainers range from $1,500–$5,000 monthly depending on call volume. Retainer clients receive priority response times, no-charge brief consultations, and discounted rates on larger matters.One-Off Consultations
For specific questions or one-time issues, we offer pay-as-you-go consultations. The first 30 minutes is always free.
Our team
The lawyers who will handle your file
Employer-side employment law rewards procedural depth, contract craftsmanship, and the negotiation experience that comes from regularly appearing on both sides of these files. Our team brings all three.
Avi Vaturi
Partner
Jae Hyon Cho
Partner
Jun Ki Lee
Associate
Allan Weiss
Associate
Kate Min Kwon
Immigration Consultant
RCIC R529664 · RQIC 11726
Frequently Asked Questions
We answered all
We use a template employment contract. Should we be worried?
Yes. Template contracts — even those purchased from Canadian HR services — frequently contain termination clauses that fail post-Waksdale. We recommend that every Ontario employer have their employment contract reviewed by an employment lawyer at least every two years, and immediately after any major Court of Appeal decision affecting termination clauses. A one-time legal review can save you from invalid contracts that expose every employee to common law notice.Can we terminate someone during their probationary period without paying anything?
Mostly no. Common misconception. ESA notice requirements apply after 3 months of continuous service regardless of any “probationary period” in the contract. Human rights protections apply from day one. The probationary period typically just means the employer can terminate without alleging “just cause” — but the employer still owes statutory notice and is still subject to discrimination claims.An employee complained about harassment. Do we have to investigate?
Yes, by statute. OHSA section 32.0.7 requires employers to “ensure that an investigation appropriate in the circumstances is conducted into incidents and complaints of workplace harassment.” Failure to investigate creates direct liability for the employer plus potential reprisal claims if the complainant is later disciplined.We want to terminate someone for cause. How sure should we be?
Very sure. Just cause termination is the highest evidentiary threshold in employment law. Courts consistently describe just cause as “capital punishment.” Even in cases where misconduct is provable, courts often find the misconduct insufficient to justify summary dismissal — especially without prior progressive discipline (warnings, suspensions). Failed just cause attempts often result in: the court awarding full common law notice; aggravated damages for the manner of dismissal; punitive damages in extreme cases; public findings that may harm the employer's reputation. If there is any doubt about whether you have just cause, the safer strategy is termination without cause, paying appropriate severance, and accepting the cost as a known quantity.Can we ask employees to sign new contracts during their employment?
Yes, but carefully. A new contract requires “fresh consideration” — something of value provided to the employee in exchange for accepting new terms. Common forms of fresh consideration: a meaningful raise (not just a cost-of-living adjustment); a bonus payment; a promotion with new title and responsibilities; additional vacation entitlement; equity grants. The new contract must be presented well before any new terms take effect (typically a minimum of one to two weeks for review). Continued employment alone is not valid consideration — courts have rejected this argument repeatedly.We have a non-compete clause. Is it still enforceable?
Probably not, if signed after October 25, 2021. The Working for Workers Act, 2021 prohibits non-compete agreements except for executives (CEO, COO, CFO, CIO, CTO, etc.) and in connection with the sale of a business. Non-competes signed before that date may still be enforceable, but face traditional restraint-of-trade analysis: they must be reasonable in geographic scope, time, and scope of restricted activity. Non-solicitation clauses are different. They remain enforceable if narrowly drafted, and we recommend updating them periodically to maintain enforceability.How much does it cost to defend a wrongful dismissal claim?
Highly variable, depending on whether the claim settles early or proceeds to trial: demand letter response and negotiation — typically $5,000–$15,000 in legal fees; pleadings, discovery, and pretrial work — additional $20,000–$60,000; mediation — additional $5,000–$15,000; trial (5–10 days typical for wrongful dismissal) — additional $50,000–$150,000. Most cases settle before trial, often during or after mediation. The employer's strategic choice is usually whether to settle early at a higher number or fight further at the risk of an even higher number plus legal costs.What about HR consultants and external HR services? Do we still need a lawyer?
HR consultants and HR-as-a-service providers handle much of the day-to-day work — policy drafting, performance management, training. For most Ontario employers, this combination is appropriate. However, only a lawyer can: provide privileged legal advice (consultant communications are not privileged); defend a wrongful dismissal claim; conduct an investigation that may form the basis of legal proceedings; draft contracts that survive judicial scrutiny in their final form; advise on litigation risk. The best model for most employers is HR consultants for ongoing operational needs, plus an employment lawyer for high-stakes matters: terminations of senior employees, complex investigations, contract drafting, and any actual or threatened litigation.
Take the next step
A small mistake in employment law produces six-figure liabilities.
Get clear, professional legal advice early. Whether you are drafting new contracts, considering a termination, responding to a harassment complaint, or planning a restructuring, the first 30-minute consultation is free, confidential, and often resolves the immediate strategic questions on the spot. Fixed-fee compliance packages and monthly retainers available for ongoing work.
Related practice areas