Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute over whether the employment agreement limited the plaintiff’s entitlement to common law reasonable notice.

• Cartel argued a five-week notice limitation existed based on correspondence and offer letter revisions.

• The court found no clear and unambiguous agreement to limit notice, and no mutual assent to revised terms.

• The plaintiff's entitlement to reasonable notice was assessed under common law principles using the Bardal factors.

• Evidence showed the plaintiff made broad but arguably limited-effort job search attempts post-termination.

• The court awarded five months’ notice, offset by severance already paid, plus costs at Scale B.

Facts and outcome of the case

Adam Lesinski, a 64-year-old engineer with extensive executive experience, was hired by Cartel Communication Systems Inc. as Vice President of Engineering. His employment began on February 12, 2024, following negotiations over an offer letter that included compensation details and a clause requiring 60 days’ notice in case of resignation. Mr. Lesinski modified this clause to five weeks, initialed the change, and returned the letter for Cartel’s countersignature—which never occurred.

On August 14, 2024, after only six months of employment, Mr. Lesinski was terminated without cause by Cartel, citing financial challenges and project delays. He was paid one month's salary in lieu of notice, plus one additional week’s pay, for a total of five weeks’ severance. He subsequently filed a wrongful dismissal claim, asserting that he was entitled to common law reasonable notice. Cartel argued that the employment agreement limited his entitlement to five weeks, relying on email correspondence and the edited offer letter.

The court rejected Cartel’s argument, finding there was no clear and unambiguous contractual limitation on Mr. Lesinski’s common law right to reasonable notice. The court emphasized that the change to five weeks in the resignation clause related only to Mr. Lesinski’s obligation to give notice—not to any limitation on the employer’s termination notice obligation. Additionally, the employer never confirmed or initialed the change, and there was no mutual agreement to the revision. Even if such a clause existed, the court held it would be void under the Employment Standards Act if it fell below statutory minimums.

In determining the appropriate notice period, the court applied the Bardal factors. These included Mr. Lesinski’s senior executive role, his age, and the apparent scarcity of comparable employment opportunities after sending out over a thousand job applications without receiving an offer. While noting deficiencies in his job search methods, the court held that Cartel failed to prove that more diligent efforts would have led to employment.

Ultimately, the court awarded Mr. Lesinski five months' salary in lieu of notice, amounting to $75,000, minus the $18,750 in severance he had already received. The net award was therefore $56,250. Additionally, Mr. Lesinski was awarded costs at Scale B, unless either party sought further submissions on costs.