Offer Review & Pre-Employment Risk Assessment

Providing pre-contract support for job seekers, including:

Interpret the key terms in the offer (such as probation period, termination clauses, etc.)
How to identify potential ‘traps’ or risk points
Important information to confirm before onboarding (such as benefits, overtime policies, hidden costs)

Before a job seeker formally accepts an offer or signs an employment agreement, we provide comprehensive review and risk assessment consulting services from an HR professional’s perspective. This service includes:

Key Clause Interpretation: Assist clients in understanding important terms and conditions in the offer or contract, such as probation period, termination or dismissal clauses, non-compete or restrictive covenants, confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements, and broad termination phrases like “at any time / in its discretion”.

Identifying Risks and Loopholes: Point out possible conflicts or disputes in the contract against the Employment Standards Act (ESA). For example, some termination clauses may contain unenforceable or invalid expressions or certain terms that, though included, may be ruled as violating minimum standards in practice.

Compensation and Benefits Negotiation Guidance: Help clarify various components such as base salary, bonuses, benefits (health/dental, vacation, severance, etc.), and the differences between these benefits; support clients in making strategic decisions during the offer stage (negotiating better terms within reason).

Pre-onboarding Checklist: Guide job seekers to confirm all necessary details before signing the contract, including whether the contract is signed, start date, clarity of job description, scope of responsibilities, reporting relationships, performance evaluation criteria, overtime policies, leave arrangements, and details of benefits, to avoid future disputes or gaps between expectations and reality.

Contract and Offer Compliance Alerts: Provide compliance advice for clients based on provincial laws and recent case law, such as which clauses may be ruled invalid by courts or which ambiguous terms may harm employee rights.

Current Provincial Needs:

High Proportion of Immigrant Population: Provincially, especially in Toronto and surrounding areas, there are many immigrants seeking employment. Many of them are signing a Canadian employment contract for the first time and are unfamiliar with the ESA and the differences between common law and statutory law.

Increasing Case Law, Employment Contract Disputes Highly Scrutinized by Courts: In recent years, there has been a surge in lawsuits and legal precedents involving employment termination clauses and severance or release clauses. Common ‘bad words’ in company template contracts—such as ‘at any time’, ‘in its sole discretion’—are often ruled invalid by courts.

Growing Employee Awareness of Rights: With information dissemination through HR communities, online forums, Reddit, Q&A platforms, etc., job seekers are increasingly inclined to understand their contract clauses and rights before signing, such as negotiating reasonable notice periods or rejecting vague terms.

Business Risks/Costs: If offers or contracts contain non-compliant terms that are then ruled invalid, employers could be required to provide higher common law notice and severance pay; for employees, unclear contracts may later force them to accept less favorable terms. Once such disputes enter court or arbitration, costs (time, legal fees, reputation) can be very high.

Real Case Studies:

In the case of Wilds v. 1959612 Ontario Inc., 2024, an executive assistant was dismissed without cause after 4.5 months of employment. The contract included a termination clause (covering base salary + minimum entitlements + release clause). The court ruled parts of the clause invalid and awarded the employee two months’ notice in lieu and punitive damages due to the employer’s ‘serious deviation from normal standards.’

In 2024, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in Dufault v. Ignace Township, found that termination clauses using ‘at any time, in its sole discretion’ were invalid as they violated the Employment Standards Act (ESA) requirements about termination and notice/severance.

In another case, the court found that even if only the ‘for cause’ (termination with reason) portion of a contract term provides less than ESA standards (e.g., does not match ‘wilful misconduct/severe improper conduct’), the entire termination clause may be invalidated.