Month: July 2026

In Salina v Investors Group Financial Services Inc., 2026 BCSC 1168 (CanLII)

Justice Morishita had a situation where a dependant contractor had the following termination clause:

10. TERMINATION

This Agreement may be terminated at any time by either party, with or without cause and with or without notice or any compensation in lieu of notice and, without limitation, may be terminated by [Investors Group] upon the breach by the Consultant of any of the terms, conditions or provision of this Agreement. On any termination or pending termination of a Consultant, [Investors Group] shall provide its clients with the appropriate notice.

In other words, this seemed to allow the defendant Investors Group to terminate with zero notice .

As the Judge notes, dependant contractors are not employees so they are not covered by the Employment Standards Act.

In Machtinger v. HOJ Industries Ltd., 1992 CanLII 102 (SCC), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 98 the Court cited the following as the basis for the implied term of reasonable notice:

“The presumption at common law that a contract of employment for an indefinite term is terminable only on reasonable notice would have been rebutted by the clear language of the contract specifying shorter notice periods.”

The issue then is zero notice a ” shorter notice period”

The Judge said NO.

[100]    In my view, “no notice” or “zero notice” is incompatible with “some other period of notice” or a “shorter period of notice.” “Some other period of notice” or a “shorter period of notice” implies some other amount, but not nothing. Because the Employment Standards Act does not apply to Mr. Salina, the shorter notice period could have been any amount of time, even one day.

[101]    Because the Termination Provision does not clearly specify any other period of notice, it does not rebut the common-law presumption of entitlement to notice and is therefore unenforceable.

What a difference a day makes.

For a copy of this case, email me at barry@barryfisher.ca

To book a mediation, go to www.barryfisher.ca

To access the Wrongful Dismissal Database go to www.wddonline.ca

In Dhaliwal v. Richter International Ltd., 2025 ONCA 522 (CanLII) Justices Wilson, Rhaman and Copeland dealt with the issue of arbitrator bias.

The parties chose the arbitrator together. Then one party found out that the opposing lawyer was also using the same arbitrator on another file. That party brought a motion before the arbitrator requesting that the arbitrator recuse. The arbitrator refused and ordered costs against the party who brought the motion.

The losing party brought an application in ONSC to overturn the arbitration award. They lost. They appealed. They lost again.  They sought leave to the SCC. This was dismissed .

This is what the ONCA said:

[8]        We reject the appellants’ contention that the terms of the arbitration required the arbitrator to disclose that he and the respondents’ counsel were involved in another arbitration. The arbitrator was required to disclose circumstances that could give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Simply being involved in a separate arbitration with one party’s lawyer is not, on its own, such a circumstance. The parties had no agreement that they could only select an arbitrator that neither had worked with before. Nor did the terms of the arbitration agreement require the arbitrator to disclose any previous involvement with the parties’ lawyers. We observe that it is not uncommon for lawyers to select arbitrators for the very reason that they have worked with those arbitrators before. There is no merit to the appellants’ submission that any non-disclosure created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

For a copy of this case, email me at barry@barryfisher.ca

To book a mediation go to www.barryfisher.ca

To access the Wrongful Dismissal Database go to www.wddonline.ca