Ontario Common-Law Reasonable Notice — Wrongful Dismissal Demand
Answer a few questions and we'll create your personalized letter.
One-time price:$39Paid once at the end. No subscription.
Why $39?
High-stakes letters cover claims where recovery is typically 6–18 months of severance, six-figure equity, or a federal tax lien — situations where $19 would be dramatic underpricing relative to the stakes. The $19 default still applies to the rest of the catalog. Same fix-or-refund guarantee on every tier.
Employment Facts + Termination Details
Common-law reasonable notice is set by the Bardal factors. This step captures each factor so the demand reflects the proper notice range.
This letter will cite
Bardal v. Globe & Mail (1960), 24 DLR (2d) 140 (Ont HC) — the reasonable-notice test; Employment Standards Act, 2000, SO 2000 c.41 ss. 5 (no contracting out), 54-66 (statutory minimum termination + severance), 97 (election against tort); Wallace v. United Grain Growers, [1997] 3 SCR 701 + Honda v. Keays, 2008 SCC 39 (manner-of-dismissal damages); Matthews v. Ocean Nutrition Canada, 2020 SCC 26 (bonus, options, vesting through notice period); Waksdale v. Swegon North America, 2020 ONCA 391 (termination-clause invalidity)
Ontario superior-court action under the Bardal framework; provincial common-law jurisdiction. Most Ontario employment lawyers handle wrongful-dismissal claims on contingency.
Older workers receive longer notice — the Bardal factors expressly weigh age as a proxy for re-employment difficulty.
Waksdale v. Swegon, 2020 ONCA 391 holds that an unenforceable 'cause' clause invalidates an entire termination provision, restoring common-law notice. Review carefully.