Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Characterization of probationary employment and whether it permits dismissal without cause, notice, or pay when the employee has not been fairly assessed
• Adequacy of the opportunity given to a probationary law clerk to demonstrate suitability for the position before termination after only 10 days of work
• Determination of reasonable notice for a very short-service, probationary employee under common law where statutory minimums do not fully displace common law rights
• Evaluation of the employee’s mitigation efforts and whether the employer proved that losses could reasonably have been avoided
• Assessment of claims for mental and emotional distress and injury to dignity in the absence of medical or corroborating evidence
• Consideration of whether the employer’s conduct in relying on a mistaken view of probationary rights justified punitive, aggravated, exemplary, or consequential damages

Factual background

Ashish Yadav, a foreign-trained lawyer from India, applied in early 2021 for a position advertised on Indeed by Ahangama Law Professional Corporation, a small Ontario law firm headed by lawyer Anoshan Ahangama. The Indeed posting was for a “Real Estate Law Clerk” in a full-time, permanent role, describing a senior law clerk position that ideally required 2–5 years of real estate law experience, the ability to run files from opening to closing, and preferably a law clerk diploma. Mr. Yadav’s résumé showed extensive legal experience as a lawyer in India but not in real estate law, and only about eight months of Canadian law clerk experience involving some real estate tasks. He was also enrolled in a Canadian law clerk program. Despite the gap between the ideal candidate profile and Mr. Yadav’s credentials, Mr. Ahangama invited him to a Zoom interview on January 23, 2021. During the interview, Mr. Yadav explained that he was completing his National Committee on Accreditation (NCA) exams and intended to write the Ontario bar exams. Given his own NCA background, Mr. Ahangama indicated he would treat Mr. Yadav like a lawyer, and he decided to offer him the position without checking references or confirming prior employment.

The employment agreement and probationary terms

On January 26, 2021, Mr. Ahangama, on behalf of the firm, sent a one-page written offer of employment, which Mr. Yadav accepted the next day. The agreement provided that Mr. Yadav would work as a law clerk in a “full-time, permanent position” with a start date of February 1, 2021. Crucially, it stated that the position was “conditional on the successful completion of an initial probationary period of three months, during which time your performance will be reviewed.” The document did not contain a termination clause and did not state that the employer could terminate “at any time without cause” or without notice or pay. The probationary language was therefore the key contractual term at issue. The defendants later argued that this probationary clause allowed them to terminate Mr. Yadav at any point during the three-month period without cause, notice, or pay in lieu. The court compared this position with leading authorities such as Nagribianko and Chan, which hold that probationary status does not strip an employee of all protections: the employer must act in good faith and give a fair and reasonable opportunity to demonstrate suitability. The absence of any express termination clause meant the common-law framework of reasonable notice continued to apply, subject only to the modified test for probationary employees.

Events during employment and the termination decision

Mr. Yadav began work on February 1, 2021. Within a few days, around February 4 or 5, Mr. Ahangama asked him how long he could commit to staying with the firm. At the employer’s urging, Mr. Yadav indicated he would remain for about 18 months, and in that same discussion, he was asked to provide three months’ notice if he chose to leave. This expectation of three months’ notice from the employee later influenced the court’s view of what was reasonable for the employer to provide on termination. Mr. Yadav was permitted to take February 8 off to write his final NCA exam. When he returned on February 9, he received what was described as his first real estate file to manage independently. According to Mr. Ahangama, it quickly became apparent that Mr. Yadav did not know how to independently handle the file, and he decided that day to terminate the employment. On February 10, 2021, after only ten days of work, Mr. Yadav was dismissed. Mr. Yadav’s evidence, which was not seriously contradicted, was that he was told the firm needed someone more senior to manage real estate files and that no concerns about his performance had ever been raised before this meeting. No performance feedback, warnings, or training had been provided during the short period of employment.

Conduct after termination and initial monetary dispute

Following the dismissal, Mr. Yadav sent late-night emails on February 10 expressing that he was shocked by the sudden termination, especially after being reassured he did not need to look for other roles and after turning down several job leads in reliance on the firm’s offer. He explained that the loss of employment would have financial and emotional consequences and requested two months’ salary as compensation. In response, Mr. Ahangama wrote that Mr. Yadav had been hired on probation and that, as a result, the firm was only obliged to pay him for the time actually worked. He indicated that Mr. Yadav would receive two weeks’ salary, less deductions, covering his work days at the firm. This email was the first time Mr. Yadav was told that his work performance was allegedly unsatisfactory. Before then, no concern about his suitability had been communicated verbally or in writing. A further dispute arose over payment for time worked. Mr. Yadav refused to provide his Social Insurance Number, and as a result, he never received wages for the ten days he had worked. Instead, he complained to the Law Society of Ontario and, when that did not resolve the matter, brought a Small Claims Court action.

Claims and defences in the litigation

In his amended claim, Mr. Yadav sought damages for wrongful dismissal, asserting that terminating him ten days into a three-month probationary period without notice or pay was unlawful in light of the common-law protections for probationary employees. He asked for $15,000 for wrongful dismissal, roughly equal to 4.5 months’ salary at his $40,000 per year wage, because that was how long it took him to find a new job after termination. He initially also claimed breach of the Ontario Human Rights Code, as well as $10,000 for mental and emotional distress and injury to dignity, plus punitive, exemplary, aggravated, and consequential damages, but he abandoned the human rights claim at trial. The defendants’ defence rested primarily on the proposition that, as a probationary employee, Mr. Yadav could be fired without notice or pay and that neither the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) nor the employment agreement imposed any notice obligation. In the alternative, they initially alleged cause based on alleged misrepresentation of his experience as a real estate clerk, but they abandoned the cause argument by the time of trial. They also pleaded that Mr. Yadav failed to mitigate his damages, denied that he suffered compensable mental or emotional harm, and did not substantively address punitive or aggravated damages.

Legal framework for probationary employment and reasonable notice

The court undertook a detailed review of Canadian case law on probationary employment and wrongful dismissal. It traced the evolution from the older, harsh approach—which treated probationary employees as having virtually no rights—to the modern position that probationary status does not eliminate the duty of good faith or the requirement of a fair, reasonable opportunity to demonstrate suitability. Authorities such as Ritchie, Mison, Ly, Nagribianko, Liivam, and other cases were analyzed. The consistent modern rule is that, unless a contract validly says otherwise, an employer may terminate a probationary employee without notice only if it acts in good faith and provides a fair and reasonable opportunity to show suitability for permanent employment. Suitability includes both performance and broader factors such as character, judgment, compatibility, and reliability. The court emphasized that one key factor is whether the employee was told what standards or criteria applied and whether performance was assessed against them over a meaningful period. The court also addressed the ESA and the common law, relying on Chan and other cases for the proposition that section 54 of the ESA, which requires notice for employees with at least three months’ continuous service, does not displace the common-law right of employees with less than three months’ service to receive reasonable notice or pay in lieu. In other words, the absence of a statutory notice requirement under the ESA for under-three-month employees does not strip them of common-law wrongful dismissal protections.

Application of the law to the facts: opportunity and good faith

Applying those principles, the court focused on the extremely short duration of Mr. Yadav’s employment, the expressed promise of a three-month probationary period with performance review, and the complete lack of feedback or training before dismissal. The uncontradicted evidence was that during ten days of work, Mr. Yadav received only one real estate file to handle alone. He was never told what specific competencies or standards he needed to meet, was not coached or corrected on that file, and was not warned that his employment was at risk. There was no documented performance management process at all. The judge concluded that the law firm had not given Mr. Yadav a fair and reasonable opportunity to demonstrate his suitability. The employer’s belief that it could dismiss him “at any time” during probation without cause and without notice was found to be a mistaken understanding of the law. Because the good faith and fair-opportunity requirements for probationary termination were not met, the firm was obliged to provide reasonable notice or pay in lieu, even though Mr. Yadav had been employed for less than three months.

Determining the reasonable notice period for a short-service employee

The court then turned to the appropriate notice period. Recognizing that common-law reasonable notice applies even to short-service probationary employees, the judge considered a wide range of authorities involving employees terminated within a few months, many of them during probation. The cases showed that very short service can sometimes justify a relatively longer notice period, particularly where termination after a brief stint makes it harder to obtain new employment because the employee must explain why they were let go so soon. The court noted that Mr. Yadav’s employment prospects were impacted because he had given up several alternative opportunities in reliance on the offer and now had to explain a ten-day stint ending in dismissal. It took him about 4.5 months to secure new employment with ESC Corporate Services. The court also addressed mitigation. While the employer alleged that Mr. Yadav had not mitigated properly, it produced no evidence of jobs he failed to pursue or of a comparable position he could reasonably have obtained earlier. Mr. Yadav, by contrast, provided documentation of his continued job search efforts. Citing the general principles that the employer bears the onus and that employees need only be reasonable, not perfect, the judge held that Mr. Yadav had reasonably mitigated his loss. After considering Mr. Yadav’s age, job type, salary, the fact he was a foreign-trained lawyer working as a law clerk, the time it actually took him to find another job, and the expectation that he would give three months’ notice if he chose to resign, the court fixed the reasonable notice period at three months.

Assessment of other heads of damages

The court examined Mr. Yadav’s claim for mental and emotional distress and for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect. Although it accepted that the termination was sudden and upsetting, the court found that he had not provided medical evidence or other proof sufficient to establish compensable mental distress damages under the applicable legal standards. As a result, no separate award was made for mental or emotional harm. On punitive, exemplary, aggravated, and consequential damages, the court found no evidence of malicious, high-handed, or outrageous conduct by the employer. Rather, the judge accepted that Mr. Ahangama acted under a misguided but genuine belief that because Mr. Yadav was on probation, he could terminate him at will without notice or pay. That misunderstanding did not rise to the level justifying punitive or aggravated damages, so those claims were dismissed. The human rights claim under the Code had already been abandoned at trial and was not considered further.

Wage entitlement and pre-judgment interest

In addition to pay in lieu of notice, the court held that Mr. Yadav was entitled to be paid for the ten days he actually worked between February 1 and February 10, 2021. Because he had not been paid those wages due to the SIN dispute, the court ordered the employer to pay that amount. The judge also addressed pre-judgment interest, whose purpose is to compensate for the loss of use of money over time. Given the 5.25-year span between termination and judgment, the court chose to calculate interest using the average of the applicable pre-judgment interest rates over the entire period, determining that 2.98 percent accurately reflected the prevailing rates. This blended rate was then applied to both the notice damages and unpaid wages from February 10, 2021 to the date of judgment.

Outcome and monetary award

Ultimately, the court found that Mr. Yadav had been wrongfully dismissed because he was not afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to demonstrate his suitability during the three-month probationary period promised in the contract. The law firm’s reliance on probationary status to avoid any notice obligation was rejected, and the judge held that common-law reasonable notice still applied. Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff, Ashish Yadav, for $10,000 as payment in lieu of three months’ notice, plus $1,095.89 in unpaid wages for the ten days he worked, and $1,735.95 in pre-judgment interest, for a total monetary award of $12,831.84. The court did not fix costs in the reasons, instead directing the parties to attempt to agree on costs or, failing that, to deliver short written submissions; accordingly, the exact amount of any costs order in Mr. Yadav’s favour could not be determined from the decision itself.