Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

Is Your Dismissed Employee Entitled to a Bonus?

By George Avraam & Susan MacMillan on April 19, 2018
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Employers who include discretionary bonuses as part of their employees’ compensation packages should be aware of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s latest guidance on (i) bonus entitlement for the period up to dismissal and (ii) compensation for the loss of a bonus during the reasonable notice period. This guidance came in the Court’s decision, issued last week, in Singer v. Nordstrong Equipment Limited, 2018 ONCA 364. Our analysis of the lower court’s decision in this case can be found here. 

Key Takeaways

Period up to dismissal

Employers need to follow a fair, identifiable process when deciding to deny or grant a discretionary bonus for the period up to an employee’s dismissal. Employers should be sure to document performance issues or any other issues that may influence bonus eligibility under applicable bonus policies or employment contracts. See our other recommendations here regarding bonus policies.

Reasonable notice period

A dismissed employee may be entitled to compensation for the loss of a bonus during the reasonable notice period. To avoid this result on a go-forward basis, the employer can consider structuring compensation packages for new hires such that the bonus is not an integral part of compensation. Where it can be argued that a bonus is not an integral part of the employee’s compensation, the employer would have a stronger claim that the employee is not entitled to the bonus during the reasonable notice period. However, changes to compensation for existing employees need to be approached with caution, as they can constitute constructive dismissal.

As another proactive measure, employers should clearly specify in the bonus plan that employees will have no entitlement to a bonus during a period of reasonable notice. The language used to negate the bonus entitlement must be clear and unambiguous. It is also prudent to include such limiting language in employment agreements for new hires. For existing employees, the employer needs to consider whether negating bonus entitlement during the notice period constitutes a change for which new consideration would be needed in order for the change to be enforceable.

Legal advice should be sought where there is any uncertainty as to the suitability of the limiting language being used or the enforceability of any new provisions.

Background

The relevant facts in Singer are outlined here. The Court of Appeal’s decision is instructive to employers for two reasons. First, the Court affirmed the lower court’s award of a discretionary bonus to a dismissed employee for his last year of work. The motion judge had held that despite the discretionary nature of the bonus, a “fair, identifiable process” must be followed in determining whether to award the bonus. The Court dismissed the employer’s cross-appeal on this issue because it failed to identify any error in the motion judge’s reasoning.

Second, on the issue of the employee’s entitlement to a bonus during the reasonable notice period, the Court found that the motion judge had erred in law by failing to apply the test articulated in Pacquette v. TeraGo Networks Inc., 2016 ONCA 618 (Pacquette). In Pacquette, the Court set out a two-part test for determining whether an employee is entitled to compensatory damages for the loss of a bonus during the reasonable notice period:

  1. Was the bonus an integral part of the employee’s compensation package, thereby triggering a common law entitlement to damages in lieu of bonus?
  2. If so, is there any language in the bonus plan that would restrict the employee’s common law entitlement to damages in lieu of a bonus over the reasonable notice period?

Applying this test, the Court found that Mr. Singer had established that his bonus was an integral part of his compensation package. The Court also found that Mr. Singer may have known that it was the company’s policy to not pay a bonus to an employee after their employment was terminated, but the company did not write this into the document that governed the bonus payment scheme. The Court accordingly concluded that Mr. Singer’s wrongful dismissal damages included compensation for the loss of his bonus during the 17-month reasonable notice period, reversing the motion judge’s ruling on this issue. An award of CAD 166,945 was calculated based on the average monthly value of his bonuses over the two years preceding dismissal, pro-rated over the 17-month period.

– With thanks to Ian Attema for his assistance with this article.

Photo of George Avraam George Avraam

George Avraam was admitted to the Ontario Bar in 1999 and has since practiced as a trial and appellate litigator. George’s practice is focused on labour, employment, public and administrative law, class actions, education law, and fiduciary duties. He has acted as lead…

George Avraam was admitted to the Ontario Bar in 1999 and has since practiced as a trial and appellate litigator. George’s practice is focused on labour, employment, public and administrative law, class actions, education law, and fiduciary duties. He has acted as lead counsel in arbitrations, administrative proceedings, trials, appeals, judicial reviews, class actions, and injunctions.

George is designated by the Law Society of Ontario as a specialist in civil litigation. He is a Fellow of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers, has been ranked in Chambers Global and Chambers Canada and Ontario (Band 2), has been recommended as a leading lawyer in Legal 500 for Labour and Employment, and has been recommended as a leading employment lawyer in Lexpert. George is also the Chair of the North America Employment and Compensation Law Practice Group and a member of the Global Employment and Compensation Law Practice Group’s Steering Committee.

Read more about George AvraamEmailGeorge's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of Susan MacMillan Susan MacMillan

Susan MacMillan is a Knowledge Lawyer in the Employment & Compensation Group in Toronto. Susan is passionate about exploring new developments in Canadian and global employment law and their implications for employers. Prior to joining Baker McKenzie, Susan had a broad employment law…

Susan MacMillan is a Knowledge Lawyer in the Employment & Compensation Group in Toronto. Susan is passionate about exploring new developments in Canadian and global employment law and their implications for employers. Prior to joining Baker McKenzie, Susan had a broad employment law practice at a full-service, national firm. She was also seconded to a Canadian chartered bank as Legal Counsel in the bank’s Employment Law Group. Susan holds an LL.M. from the University of Toronto where her thesis focused on the interaction between seniority rights and the duty to accommodate.

Read more about Susan MacMillanEmailSusan's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Canadian Labour and Employment Law
  • Organization:
    Baker McKenzie
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo