Frustration with the contract arises when a contract is legally terminated due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the parties involved. For example, frustration with a contract occurs when a contract is concluded through no fault of the parties: frustration with the contract is a mechanism for splitting an employment relationship with minimal liability. It generally applies to situations where the employment relationship has become untenable due to a change in circumstances beyond the control of the parties. If a breach of contract is deemed to have occurred, the employment relationship is deemed to have ended without any obligation between the employer and the employee. The employer does not have to send the employee notice of termination or severance pay. Determining when there is possible frustration with the contract can be difficult. Although the court confirmed that the frustration of the contract is not triggered by an act or statement of a party, it is less clear whether there are circumstances that thwart the contract. In that case, the court found that the contract had been thwarted on October 19, 2016, when Hoekstra`s illness changed from „non-permanent“ to „permanent.“ There are no strict rules for determining when an employment contract has become frustrated, and there are many cases where workers have been unemployed for years and the courts have said the contract has not yet been frustrated. On the contrary, each case is decided on the basis of its own particular facts and, in particular, the available medical information.

The courts will assess whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the person will be able to return to work in the foreseeable future. If this is the case, it is unlikely that the court will conclude that the employment contract has been thwarted. Employers should proceed with caution when it comes to claiming frustration from the employment relationship. A misstep in this regard can be costly and expose the employer to involuntary liability under human rights legislation (without due consideration of a disability to the point of undue hardship) as well as contractual or customary severance pay (if the termination of the employment relationship was actually established as a result of the employer`s actions). In general, the frustration of an employment contract would only occur due to illness or disability, however, the global pandemic, COVID-19, introduces an interesting legal issue; Is COVID-19 an unpredictable event that can thwart an employment contract? The court`s decision in Hoekstra v. Rehability Occupational Therapy Inc. is important for clarifying the doctrine of contract frustration. Amanda is active in all areas of civil litigation, with a focus on property and contract disputes, as well as defending against professional negligence.

Under Regulation 288/01 of the Labour Standards Act 2000, in cases of breach of contract due to injury or illness of the employee, the employer remains obliged to pay a minimum severance pay and/or severance pay to an employee in the event of frustration with the employment relationship. There is no clear line test in this regard; Each situation must be carefully assessed on the basis of its facts, taking into account the surrounding context and the likelihood of employment recovery. Recently, however, the Ontario Supreme Court found that a contract of employment related to illness is frustrated when „there is no reasonable likelihood that the employee will be able to return to work within a reasonable period of time.“ One. If a party`s employment contract has been thwarted, the employer is generally exempt from any obligation to pay either contractual severance pay or a common law notice (or payment to its number). However, employers must continue to comply with the minimum legal requirements. Vey Willetts LLP is an Ottawa-based employment law boutique that provides timely and cost-effective legal advice to help employees and employers resolve workplace issues in the National Capital Region and across Ontario. To speak with an employment lawyer, contact us at 613-238-4430 or The COVID pandemic has significantly affected the workplace in a number of ways, resulting in massive layoffs, layoffs and business closures. For this reason, the question arises as to whether employment contracts have been thwarted by COVID-19. Theoretically, this could happen in terms of jobs that have faced severe economic hardship during COVID and among employees who have become ill due to COVID. In this case, employees are entitled to a statutory minimum severance and severance pay in accordance with the above rules, i.e., h., if a business has been closed, the ESA only provides for severance pay and, if an employee has fallen ill, the right to severance and severance pay remains. To deal with situations where companies have suffered economic losses due to the pandemic, but have not permanently ceased operations and laid off employees, the Ministry of Labor has enacted laws that create the new emergency leave for infectious diseases and determine how workers may be entitled to dismissal and/or severance pay.

. . .