The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/1183528
60 www.canadianlawyermag.com severance package, and if the company agrees to this, "their understanding is that they have a deal," he says. The employer can then be upset when, down the road, it gets a demand letter from an employee's lawyer "when they thought that everything had been settled." In such a situation, says Rudner, at the very least, the company is unhappy, and there is potential for the employee's reputation to be damaged. "And in a worst- case scenario [for an employee], like in Bombardier, the person might well be held to the bargain they accepted." you haven't signed the papers. And that's an important principle both for employers and employees to recognize." The Divisional Court's decision in Bombardier doesn't reflect a change in law, but it is important in that it's "a great reminder," says Stuart Rudner of employment and labour firm Rudner Law in Toronto. "Just because something's not signed and in writing, it's still a binding agreement." Rudner says it's not unusual for dismissed employees to informally write to an HR department to ask for a more attractive LEGAL REPORT WORKPLACE LAW the Divisional Court found that Bombardier's revision of its termination package did not constitute a "new offer" but was simply an acceptance of the offer to which the employees had agreed. "The general principle that we see in the Bombardier case is consistent with settlement agreements in general and contracts in general," says Liam Ledgerwood, a labour and employment lawyer at Siskinds LLP in London, Ont. "Just like any other contract, a settlement agreement which is agreed to orally will be binding." Yet a key lesson from the decision is the need for caution, Ledgerwood says. "Employers have to be careful not to evidence an agreement to a settlement before they're actually ready to be bound by the terms," he says. Although in this case it was an employer-friendly decision, "that doesn't mean that it couldn't equally go the other way if the context were right. You may not be able to backtrack on a deal just because "As long as we agree on the essential terms of the deal, you have an enforceable contract, and that's what this case suggests. Liam Ledgerwood, Siskinds LLP