Trustworthy Legal Services is your Legal Expert helping primarily landlords in the area of residential landlord and tenant disputes and Employment matters with the compensation amount of $50,000 or less.  Contact for Legal Advice in Ontario at 647-891-9089.




Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer unilaterally and substantially alters a fundamental term or condition of an employment contract, creating an intolerable situation that forces the employee to resign. Although the employee initiates the resignation, the law treats it as an involuntary termination.




Constructive Dismissal generally falls into two categories: monetary changes & non-monetary changes.


Monetary Changes

• A substantial cut  in salary (usually 10% or more), a significant reduction in commissions or bonuses;
• A significant reduction or removal of benefit entitlements.

Non-Monetary Changes

• Changed duties and status: Removing core responsibilities, significantly diminishing an employee's  authority , or/and implementing a major shift in reporting structure;

 

• Substantial reduction in work hours or a major change of shifts; 

 

• Significant increase in workload; 

 

• Geographic Relocation: Forcing an employee to move to distant geographic location, or demanding a remote work report to a distant in-person location; 

 

• Hostile Work Environment:  The employee is subject to harassment, discrimination or abusive conduct from the employer or co-worker(s);

 

• Refusal to accommodate: A failure to accommodate can trigger a fundamental alternation of employment terms or create intolerable work environment;

 

• Unapproved Layoffs:  Imposing a temporary layoff where the employment contract does not expressly permit it;

 

• Forced to quit or be fired:  Threatening termination unless the employee voluntarily resigns.

Case Law Example:  Significant Increase in Workload

In Damaso v. PSI Peripheral Solutions Inc. (2013 ONSC 6923), the Ontario Superior Court held that a significant increase in workload may constitute a fundamental change to the employment relationship and give rise to constructive dismissal. In that case, the employee's request for increased compensation, reflecting the substantial increase in responsibilities beyond his original position, was denied by the employer.



Recent Trend: Return-To-Office Mandates

A return-to-office mandate may also give rise to a constructive dismissal claim if it is not implemented properly. An employer's right to require an employee to return to the workplace may be preserved through an enforceable term in the employment agreement or a subsequent written agreement. However, remote work may become an implied or fundamental term of employment where the employee has worked remotely for an extended period and no end date or recall provision was specified.
 

This principle was illustrated in Byrd v. Welcome Home Children's Residence Inc. 2024.  The plaintiff had worked remotely from Belgium for over a year while employed as a manager of a care home. Her working hours were significantly reduced, and many of her responsibilities were reassigned to an on-site manager after she declined to return to in-person work. There was no written agreement specifying when the remote-work arrangement would end or reserving the employer's right to require her return to the workplace. The court ultimately found that requiring the employee to return to the office under those circumstances constituted constructive dismissal.



The Test for Constructive Dismissal 

To successfully claim constructive dismissal, an employee must establish that:

1. The employer's unilateral action breached an express or implied term of the employment contract;
2. The change was substantial and detrimental to the employee's working conditions;
3. The employee did not consent (expressly or implicitly) to these changes;
4. The employee objected to the changes within a reasonable time period.

If an employee detects warning signs of constructive dismissal:

• Object explicitly: Express your objection to the major change to your employer, preferably in writing, within a reasonable period of time;
• Keep thorough records: Save emails, texts, and letters regarding the fundamental change in work conditions; document all changes and events that contributed to making the workplace intolerable.
• Seek legal advice: Employees should consult with a legal professional before resigning.

​

An employee who successfully establishes constructive dismissal may be entitled to:

• ESA Minimums: If your employment contract restricts termination pay to Employment Standards Act (ESA) minimums, you may be entitled to one week of pay per year of service (up to 8 weeks), and potentially severance pay (one week per year of service, capped at 26 weeks), after five years of service, if one of the following criteria is met:

 

1. The employment of 50 or more employees is severed within a six-month period due to a permanent discontinuance of all or part of the employer's business.​
2. The employer has an annual payroll of $2.5 million or more. 

• Common Law Reasonable Notice: Entitlements are based on the employee's age, length of service, position, and job availability, usually ranging from max. 1 month per year up to 24 months of total compensation.  There were rare circumstances that awarded more than 24 months in recent cases. 

 

• Aggravated or Punitive Damages: These may be pursued if the constructive dismissal is linked to bad-faith conduct discrimination, harassment, or other particularly egregious conduct by the employer. 

​
Court Jurisdiction and Limitation Period
​
Constructive dismissal claims may be pursued in the Ontario Small Claims Court where the amount claimed does not exceed CAD $50,000, making the process generally more cost-effective. In most cases, a claim must be commenced within two years of the date on which the cause of action arose.






​
Disclaimer:  This information is not intended to be construed as a legal advice, but strictly for your information only.  Please contact Trustworthy Legal Services for an independent legal advice in your particular situation.  The first consultation is required prior to the retainer of your case.



Follow on Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram & Twitter.

Like or/Share this article if you find it is useful.  

Trustworthy Legal Services is your Legal Expert helping primarily landlords in the area of residential landlord and tenant disputes and Employment matters with the compensation amount of $50,000 or less.  Contact for Legal Advice in Ontario at 647-891-9089.




A key element of a wrongful dismissal claim is insufficient compensation for a dismissal without case (i.e., a layoff).


Termination provisions in an employment agreement aim to limit the employee's entitlement to the statutory minimum requirements of the ESA, thereby attempting to rebut the presumption of a considerably longer common-law notice period upon dismissal without cause. 




The validity and enforceability of ESA-compliant termination provisions often depend on the following factors:


I) Invalidity of ESA Provisions

A termination clause is rendered invalid if any of its terms allow for compensation, severance, or benefit continuation that falls below the statutory minimums of the ESA.  If a clause is invalidated, the employee may revert to the higher common-law entitlements, particularly for a long-term employee.


This is also true when the termination clause fails to explicitly state that the benefits and vacation pay will continue during the statutory notice period. 



II) Ambiguity of the Termination Clause 

Ambiguous wording can render a termination clause unenforceable. leading to an employee's common-law entitlements.


In Quesnelle v. Camus Hydronics Ltd. (2022 ONSC 6156), the plaintiff successfully argued that the termination provisions are void because they contravened the ESA.  The court focused on the use of phrases like "AND/OR" and "ONLY", which suggested the employer could choose to pay either termination pay or severance pay, or could exclude the continuation of benefits during the notice period, contrary to the ESA.  Because these condition violated the ESA, the entire provision was void.


The Court granted the plaintiff 10-months' common-law notice, significantly more than the statutory standard of 7 weeks' notice and 7.2 weeks' severance pay.





III) Unenforceability of ESA Provisions

If any part of the termination provision violates the ESA minimum standards, the entire clause is typically deemed unenforceable, which then entitles the employee to common-law notice. 


In Waksdale v Swegon North America Inc. (2020), the "with cause" provision was found to violate the ESA.   The termination clause stipulates that an employee is terminated without pay "for cause" but does not adhere to the higher threshold of "willful misconduct" required by the ESA to deny statutory notice.  As a result, the Ontario Court of Appeal struck out the entire termination provision, including the separate, properly-drafted portion dealing with "without cause" dismissal, giving rise to common-law entitlements for the employee. 


Furthermore, in Dufault v. Ignace (Township) (2024 ONCA 915), termination clauses that allowed employers to dismiss employees "at any time" in their sole discretion were found non-compliant with the ESA.   This language violated sections that prohibits termination as a result of an employee's protected leave (s. 53) or in reprisal for exercising their rights (s. 74).






Common-Law vs. Statutory Entitlements

The compensation an employee receives upon a layoff is contingent upon the termination provisions established in the original employment agreement.   Long-term employees, generally defined as those with five years or more of service, are more likely to be compensated with higher common-law entitlements.



a) ESA Minimums (Statutory) 


The ESA sets minimum entitlements that employers must meet:

•  Notice/Termination Pay:  One week of notice or pay in lieu per year of service, capped at a maximum of eight weeks.

 

• Severance Pay:  Employees with five years or more of service are entitled to severance pay (one week per year of service, capped at 26 weeks) if one of the following criteria is met: 

 

1. The employment of 50 or more employees is severed within a six-month period due to a permanent discontinuance of all or part of the employer's business.​
2. The employer has an annual payroll of $2.5 million or more. 

b) Common-Law Notice (Duty to Mitigate).

Long-term permanent employees are entitled to a reasonable common-law notice period unless this right is explicitly and validly limited by the employment contract. This approximately amounts to one month per year of service, while the length of the reasonable notice period is governed by the following factors:

• The employee's age.
• The employee's position.
• The employee's level of compensation and
• The availability of similar employment, considering the employee's experience, training and qualifications.

Under the common law, employees have a duty to mitigate damages by actively seeking comparable employment to minimize the employer's liability.




Fixed-Term vs. Indefinite Contracts

For fixed-term employment contracts, unclear or ambiguous termination provisions can result in compensation for the employee for the remainder of the contract term.  This payment is generally not subject to the duty to mitigate. 


In the case of Howard v. Benson Group Inc. (2015 ONSC 2638), the termination clause was found to be drafted for an indefinite-term employee, stating that termination pay would be "in accordance with the Employment Standards Act of Ontario."  There is  no enforceable early termination clause that stipulates amounts paid for the fixed term upon dismissal without cause.  As the clause was deemed invalid for a fixed-term contract, the employee was awarded the balance of his five-year contract when terminated after 23 months. 




​
It highly suggests consulting with a legal professional to review the termination provisions in the employment contract before signing, as the employer's offer is limited to the minimums compliant with the ESA.  If the long-term employee signs an employment contract that adheres only to the ESA minimum standards, they may not be reasonably compensated with common-law notice if being laid off. 


It is also recommended to have your severance package reviewed to ensure you are reasonably compensated before signing the final release in the "without cause" dismissal.   As a Paralegal, I can assist in dealing with this employment matter, given that the compensation amounts to CAD $50.000 or less. 

​


Disclaimer:  This information is not intended to be construed as a legal advice, but strictly for your information only.  Please contact Trustworthy Legal Services for an independent legal advice in your particular situation.  The first consultation is required prior to the retainer of your case.



Follow on Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram & Twitter.

Like or/Share this article if you find it is useful.  

Trustworthy Legal Services is your Legal Expert helping primarily landlords in the area of residential landlord and tenant disputes with the compensation amount of $50,000 or less.  Contact for Legal Advice in Ontario at 647-891-9089.



Under section 69 of the Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act (BIA),  filing for bankruptcy or a consumer proposal triggers an “automatic stay of proceedings.”  This prevents a landlord from using pre-bankruptcy rent arrears—which are considered provable in bankruptcy—as grounds for eviction.  Furthermore, according to section 84.2 of the BIA, a tenancy cannot be terminated solely because a tenant owes rent at the time they declare bankruptcy.
 

Please note, however, that this restriction does not apply to rent that accrues after the bankruptcy filing.   A tenant is not protected from eviction, such as through an N4 notice, for any failure to pay post-bankruptcy rent.
 

Regarding previous unpaid arrears up to the date of bankruptcy filing, the Landlord becomes an unsecured creditor and must submit a Proof of Claim to the bankruptcy trustee under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court.  The trustee will then liquidate the bankrupt tenant’s assets and pay creditors according to their ranking until the tenant is discharged.
 
 



The following scenarios illustrate how to proceed with N4 notices or/and L1 applications depending on when the bankruptcy occurs:
 

i)  No N4 notice served during the pre-bankruptcy period  
 
The Landlord can serve an N4 notice for rent arrears that accrue after the date of the bankruptcy filing.   For any rent owed during the pre-bankruptcy period, the Landlord is required to file a Proof of Claim with the trustee in bankruptcy.
 
 

ii)  The L1 application has already been filed with the Landlord and Tenant Board  

Upon being notified of the tenant’s bankruptcy status, the Landlord must amend the L1 application to include the tenant’s trustee in bankruptcy as a party.  Additionally, a Notice of Hearing must be served to the trustee.   Although the rent arrears owed before the bankruptcy filing date must be handled as a claim within the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court, any rent that accrues after the date of bankruptcy can be determined at the L1 hearing.



iii)  L1 Orders Issued During Pre-Bankruptcy  
 
The Landlord can still enforce the eviction component of an L1 order issued during the pre-bankruptcy period.  However, the monetary component of the order should be stayed under s. 69.4 of the BIA.  The Landlord may request to amend the existing order to include only the eviction and not the collection of rent arrears stated in the order.
 

This is supported by In the Matter of the Bankruptcy of Sylvie Marie Lafond (aka Jane Lafond) of the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 4065, where the Court concluded that the eviction clause in an L1 order remained enforceable and was not stayed by s. 69 of the BIA. This principle was also noted in Re Snaith, 2025 ONSC 3413.
 
 

iv)  Mediated Settlement or Conditional L1 Order Before Bankruptcy Filing  

The Landlord can file an L3 (for mediated settlement) or an L4 (for conditional L1 order) to request an ex-parte order for an eviction based on a breach of the settlement or conditions. However, no request can be made for the collection of rent arrears from the pre-bankruptcy period. While bankruptcy prevents the collection of pre-existing rent arrears, it does not override the landlord’s right to evict for ongoing non-compliance.
 
 


​

While single-tenant scenarios are relatively straightforward, complications arise when there is a joint tenancy with two or more tenants. Because joint tenants are jointly and severally liable to the landlord for the entire rent, the Landlord may seek the full amount owed from any non-bankrupt joint tenant(s). This remains true even though it is impossible to terminate the tenancy of only the non-bankrupt joint tenant(s) due to the restrictions set out in section 84.2 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA). The recent decision in Mahmood v. Riutta, 2024 ONLTB 62844 [para. 32 – 36] can be referenced.
 
 
Given that both bankruptcy law and residential tenancy law are involved in these situations, it is highly recommended to consult with a legal professional to navigate these overlapping jurisdictions.
 


​


Disclaimer:  This information is not intended to be construed as a legal advice, but strictly for your information only.   Please contact Trustworthy Legal Services for an independent legal advice in your particular situation.  The first consultation is required prior to the retainer of your case. 


Follow on Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram &  Twitter.

Like or/Share this article if you find it is useful.

Trustworthy Legal Services is your Legal Expert helping primarily landlords in the area of residential landlord and tenant disputes with the compensation amount of $50,000 or less.  Contact for Legal Advice in Ontario at 647-891-9089.



What are the key implications of the recent passing of Bill 60 for both landlords and tenants?
 
This new legislation changes on November 24, 2025,  despite of a royal assent granted on Nov. 27, 2025 but still awaiting to become effective, continues to generate significant disagreement, particularly from the tenants.  However, many, especially landlords, view it as a necessary measure for balancing tenant and landlord rights.
 

Let’s discuss the implications of this new legislation changes for both landlords and tenants in the following:
 
 

1.  The termination date of N4 notice (Non-payment of Rent) is set 7 days from the date the notice is served 


Implications for the Landlords
 

• The Landlord is able to achieve faster eviction process in cases of non-payment of rent.

 

• The Landlord can reduce financial loss if the Tenant is not paying rent, resulted from either the loss of financial affordability for the rental unit or/and the Tenant’s lack of intention to pay rents.

 
 
Implications for the Tenants
 

• The Tenant is given a shorter time period to secure funds for rent arrears, which may accelerate the eviction process.

 

• The Tenant can still make partial payments that he/she can reasonably afford while experiencing temporary financial stress.  The Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) may consider a reasonable payment plan, especially if the Tenant demonstrates continued financial affordability and an intention to pay rents.

 

• The LTB will still consider relevant circumstances and conditions, such as compassion grounds or/and temporary financial situations etc., from the Tenant but at a stricter discretion.

 
 
 
2. The Tenant can only raise issue(s) pertaining to any violations of maintenance or/and tenant’s rights in the rent-arrears hearing (N4/L1), once 50% of the rent arrears have been paid 


Implications for the Landlords
 

• The Landlord can get a kind of guarantee that the tenant may continue paying rents, when the maintenance violation can be justified at the hearing.

 

• The LTB will order the Landlord for repair or maintenance, if it is proven to be the Landlord’s responsibility.

 

• This change can avoid the tenant’s tactics of delaying his/her stay in the rental unit with no intention of paying owing and ongoing rents.

 
 
Implications for the Tenants
 

• The Tenant can demonstrate his/her intention of paying rents in this continued tenancy once the maintenance issue is rectified, if it is the landlord’s responsibility.

 

• The Tenant can still file a T2 application (Tenant’s rights violation) or/and a T6 application (Maintenance or Repair issues) against the landlord, which are considered separate applications from N4/L1 (Non-payment of Rent) within 1 year from when the incident(s) occurred, if the Tenant prefers not to pay 50% of rent arrears.

 


3.  1-month rent compensation can be waived if the N12 notice (Landlord’s Personal Use) is given to the tenant at least 120 days in advance.  


Implications for the Landlords
 

• The Landlord could save a 1-month rent compensation if the N12 notice is given at least 120 days in advance.

 

• This extended notice period makes it more likely that the tenant will find suitable new accommodation at a reasonable price, as opposed to settling for higher rent due to undue time pressure, which is the rationale of waiving the 1-month rent compensation with this extended timeline.

 

Implications for the Tenants
 

• The Tenant can benefit from having more sufficient time (at least 120 days as opposed to the previous 60 days) to find suitable accommodation.

 

• The Tenant will not receive the 1-month rent compensation if the N12 notice is served with this extended timeline.

 
 
 
4.  Request to review an order is shortened from 30 days to 15 days for both parties  


Implications for both Landlords and Tenants
 

• This change introduces constraint due to shorter appeal period for either party.
• Shorter period allowed for eviction delays by the tenants.

 
 


The objective of passing Bill 60 is mandated to improve the reduction of backlogs with the LTB, limit potential abuses, and introduce new measures aimed at achieving a better balance between the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants.
 

The change in this legislation has triggered fears over housing affordability and security.  A prospective tenant can only be qualified and accepted by the landlord if meeting the required income threshold and other relevant factors.  Unfortunately, this standard means that low-income individuals who cannot meet them are denied by the landlord regardless the legislation change takes place.  This situation, in turn, highlights the critical need for government intervention to address housing accessibility for low-income populations.  Such measures could include building more subsidized housing and/or creating more stable and sufficient job opportunities for support.
 

The better our system balances the rights between landlord and tenant, the more affordable housing will be available.  The rationale is that more landlords would be willing to rent out their units instead of keeping them vacant, thereby helping to harmonize the demand and supply of rentals.  Additionally, developers would be motivated to build more housing due to increased confidence amongst residential investors.
 

Some have raised the concern that an increase in rental housing supply might not translate to financial affordability for tenants because landlord could easily raise rents if rental units turn over quickly.  However, the increase in rent should always remain in line with the market price, which will experience less upward pressure when there is greater housing supply available to meet the existing tenant’s demand.
 
​
In terms of housing security, if a tenant keeps paying rent or complies with paying 50% of rent arrears as per the recent changes, there is lower risk of being evicted.  The tenant can still attend the rent-arrears hearing to fight for his/her rights, specifically regarding the maintenance or repair, tenant’s rights violation and similar issues.  The only exception is the landlord’s personal use (N12 notice) which already exists prior to the recent passing of Bill 60.  However, the tenant can still attend the L2 hearing to testify if he/she believes that the N12 notice was given in bad faith.
 
 
​


Disclaimer:  This information is not intended to be construed as a legal advice, but strictly for your information only.   Please contact Trustworthy Legal Services for an independent legal advice in your particular situation.  The first consultation is required prior to the retainer of your case. 


Follow on Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram &  Twitter.

Like or/Share this article if you find it is useful.

Trustworthy Legal Services is your Legal Expert helping people with civil disputes in the areas of Employment, WSIB, Small Claims, Landlord & Tenant, and other tribunal matters with the compensation amount of $35,000 or less.  Contact for Legal Advice in Ontario at 647-891-9089.



Many landlords may get petrified when receiving the tenant’s complaint regarding the prolonged repair or non-compliance with landlord’s obligation to repair & maintenance.
 

The first element is to determine if the landlord get notified of a necessary repair in the rental premise by the tenant prior to the filing of a T6 application, pursuant to section 30(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (RTA), especially when a landlord is not residing in the same rental premise with the tenant.  Failure to do so may contribute to no remedy or less relief can be awarded, unless it can be proven that the landlord already knew about the problem or should have known.
 

The second element is to assess if the damage resulted from normal wear and tear, given that the tenant did notify the landlord of such necessary repair.  Landlord is only obligated to rectify the maintenance deficiencies resulted from normal wear and tear, which refers to the expected deterioration of items due to regular use over time.  Section 20 of RTA stipulates that the responsibility of a landlord is to provide and maintain the premises in a good state of repair and fit for habitation in compliance with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards.  The tenant cannot insist upon a standard of perfection regarding repairs, rather the landlord is only required to demonstrate such repair has been properly done.
 
​
On the contrary, when the damage was caused by the willful or negligent conduct of the tenant which was also verified by a certified professional or through obvious observation, it shall be the responsibility of a tenant for such repair in accordance with section 34 of the RTA.  It is highly recommended to obtain a report from a certified professional if the damage was caused willfully or negligently by the tenant, because he or she may dispute about the cause of such damage not beyond normal wear and tear.  Meanwhile, the landlord can serve N5 notice to get the tenant to pay for the cost incurred for such repairs if proven to be an undue damage.
 
 
The third element is to ensure the problem(s) to be rectified within a reasonable time.  It may be hard but crucial to define a reasonable time for a necessary repair in your own circumstance, when usually within 1 – 2 weeks for minor repair, but contingent upon factors such as the nature of repair and its extent, the scheduling of contractor/technician for such repair, the availability of parts (sometimes supplies are not available locally but needed to be shipped from overseas) etc.  The tenant cannot unreasonably prevent the landlord from entering into the unit to make the repairs when a 24-hour entry notice is provided.   Such conduct may result in no compensation for any prolonged repair or non-repair from the landlord because of the tenant’s uncooperative behaviour.  Furthermore, the tenant should not undertake the repairs without the landlord’s consent when it is stipulated in the lease, because it may be remedied with less relief or no compensation at all, when the landlord may dispute about the cause of such maintenance deficiencies is beyond normal wear and tear. 
 


The landlord can take preventative measures on potential allegations for non-repair or prolonged repair through a proper written communication with the tenant for a necessary repair already reported. 
 

The proper written communication for a necessary repair with the tenant should include (i) when a certified professional will come over for an inspection, (ii) when a certified professional will make repairs and its estimated timeline; (iii) keep the tenant updated of a new date and it reason(s), if rescheduling is necessary by a certified professional or waiting for the arrival of parts; and (iv) the problems which have been rectified and the date of completion for all repairs, or any relevant communication to protect the landlord in the situation.   
 

As a result, the landlord can avoid any ambiguity of the date of completion for all necessary repairs but within a reasonable time by documenting the timeline for such repairs, just in case any unexpected T6 tenant application may arise. 





​
Disclaimer:  This information is not intended to be construed as a legal advice, but strictly for your information only.   Please contact Trustworthy Legal Services for an independent legal advice in your particular situation.  The first consultation is required prior to the retainer of your case. 


Follow on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.

Like or/Share this article if you find it is useful