In C. v. Township of Ignace, 2025 ONSC 2506, the Ontario Superior Court refused an employer’s request to postpone a wrongful dismissal trial while the employer pursued a potential appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in a related employment law case. The decision is an important reminder that employees are generally entitled to have their claims heard without lengthy delays, even where an employer hopes a future appeal may change the law.
The ruling also demonstrates that courts are reluctant to permit litigation tactics that could postpone employment claims for months or even years.
Background
The employee was dismissed without cause and received termination pay under her employment contract. She subsequently commenced a wrongful dismissal claim, arguing that the termination provision in her contract was unenforceable because it violated the minimum standards set out in Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”).
The matter was scheduled for trial in May 2025 and was fully prepared to proceed.
Before trial, however, the employer brought a motion seeking an adjournment. The employer argued that another case involving the same municipality and a substantially similar termination clause was already making its way through the appellate process.
That separate case, Dufault v. Township of Ignace, had resulted in findings that the employer’s termination clause was unenforceable. After unsuccessful appeals, the employer sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The employer argued that because the Supreme Court’s eventual decision could affect the validity of the termination clause at issue in the employee’s case, the trial should be delayed until the appeal process was completed.
The Employer’s Position
The employer argued that proceeding with the trial before the Supreme Court decided whether it would hear the appeal could create inefficiencies and potentially require the parties to revisit issues later.
According to the employer, the outcome of the Dufault appeal could significantly affect the employee’s claim. The employer maintained that waiting for the appellate process to conclude would avoid unnecessary use of court resources and provide certainty regarding the applicable legal principles.
The employer also emphasized that this was not a typical request to delay proceedings. It argued that the circumstances were unique because both cases involved the same employer and substantially similar contractual language.
The Employee’s Position
The employee opposed the adjournment request. Among other things, she argued that her case involved issues that would not be affected by the pending appeal. In addition to challenging the enforceability of the termination clause, she alleged that the employer had incorrectly calculated her length of service when determining her termination entitlements.
The employee also argued that granting the adjournment would create an undesirable precedent. If courts routinely postponed employment cases whenever an appeal involving similar legal issues was pending, employees could face lengthy delays in obtaining resolutions to their claims.
The Court’s Decision
The court refused to adjourn the trial. Although the court acknowledged that the termination clause at issue was substantially similar to the clause being challenged in the Dufault litigation, it concluded that the employee’s case involved additional issues that would need to be determined regardless of the outcome of any future appeal.
The court also rejected the employer’s alternative proposal to move the trial to a later date while awaiting a decision on whether the Supreme Court would grant leave to appeal.
Justice Lepere noted that postponing the matter would not truly resolve the employer’s concern. If leave to appeal were granted, the parties would likely find themselves in the same position and face further requests for delay.
Perhaps most importantly, the court expressed concern about the broader implications of granting the adjournment. The court warned that doing so could encourage similar requests in many other employment cases whenever a significant appeal was pending.
The court concluded that such an approach could create unnecessary delays throughout the justice system and undermine timely access to justice.
Why This Decision Matters for Employees
This decision reinforces the principle that employees should not be required to wait indefinitely while employers pursue appeals in separate cases.
Employment litigation can already take considerable time to resolve. Allowing employers to routinely postpone trials while awaiting the outcome of unrelated appeals could leave employees in legal limbo for years.
The decision also confirms that courts will look carefully at whether a pending appeal actually affects all aspects of an employee’s claim. Where there are independent issues that can still be decided, courts may be reluctant to delay the proceeding.
For employees, this can be particularly important because wrongful dismissal claims often involve multiple legal issues, including disputes over termination clauses, bonus entitlements, benefits, commissions, or other contractual rights.
The Importance of Multiple Claims
One notable aspect of this case was that the employee’s claim was not limited to the validity of the termination clause.
She also alleged that the employer had incorrectly calculated her service for termination purposes. Because that issue would require determination regardless of the outcome of the pending appeal, it weakened the employer’s argument that the entire case should be put on hold.
The decision serves as a reminder that employment claims often involve more than one legal issue. A thorough review of an employee’s circumstances may reveal additional claims that can strengthen the overall case.
Key Takeaways for Employees
Employees pursuing wrongful dismissal claims should not assume that their case must be delayed simply because a similar matter is being appealed elsewhere.
Courts generally favour moving cases forward where doing so promotes fairness and access to justice. While appellate decisions can influence the development of employment law, employees are ordinarily entitled to have their claims decided based on the law as it currently stands.
This case demonstrates that courts are willing to reject attempts to postpone employment litigation where the delay would create unnecessary prejudice and uncertainty for employees. It also highlights the value of obtaining legal advice early to identify all potential claims arising from a termination and ensure that important issues are not overlooked.
Speak With an Employment Lawyer
If your employer is attempting to delay your wrongful dismissal claim or if you have questions about a termination package, it is important to obtain legal advice as early as possible. Employment claims often involve issues that are not immediately obvious, including the enforceability of termination clauses, severance entitlements, and other contractual rights.
The employment lawyers at Monkhouse Law help non-unionized employees understand their rights and assess their legal options. Contact us for a free 30-minute phone consultation.