A Toronto employment law firm has established a groundbreaking legal argument that could fundamentally change how termination clauses work in Canadian employment contracts.
Whitten & Lublin’s innovative approach in the Timmins v. Artisan Cells case has been recognized with the Employment Law Case of the Year award for introducing what the court described as “a novel ground for invalidating termination clauses.”
The case represents a significant development in Canadian employment law by challenging termination clauses based on contract enforcement methods rather than specific clause wording, which had been the traditional approach in Ontario courts.
“This case exemplifies the pursuit of redefining legal standards and spearheading transformative change in employment law,” noted the award submission, highlighting how the case could potentially have the same impact on employment contracts as the precedent-setting Waksdale decision.
The legal team advanced the argument that by removing an employee’s statutory right to file complaints with the Ministry of Labour and instead mandating civil court proceedings, certain employment contracts effectively violate the Employment Standards Act (ESA).
Justice Callaghan acknowledged in his January 2025 ruling that the argument introduced “far-reaching consequences” that could impact employment contracts across Ontario. The court recognized the approach as “a novel ground for invalidating termination clauses.”
The case involved Nicholas Timmins, a former Chief Development Officer at Artisan Cells, who was terminated after 3.5 years of employment. Beyond the innovative legal argument around complaint processes, the court found that the employer had repudiated Timmins’ employment agreement by failing to provide his contractual severance entitlements and insisting on an overly broad release.
Instead of receiving his contractually obligated three months’ severance, Timmins received only one week’s pay with the remainder contingent on signing a comprehensive release that included non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses.
This behavior led the court to award nine months of common law notice totaling approximately $457,000.
While Justice Callaghan ultimately decided the case on other grounds, the court specifically noted that the firm’s novel argument questioning whether employment contracts could validly oust the ESA complaint process would be left “to another court, on another occasion” given its potentially significant implications.
Whitten & Lublin, with 17 lawyers specializing exclusively in employment law, has built a reputation for taking on precedent-setting cases. The boutique firm serves both employers and employees and has become so respected that other law firms frequently refer clients to them.
According to the nomination, the Timmins case demonstrates the firm’s “pivotal role in shaping and advancing the evolution of employment law in Canada” by introducing legal arguments that could invalidate certain termination clauses and necessitate new, more robust employment contract structures in the future.
Even though the novel argument wasn’t fully adjudicated because the defendant didn’t appear to contest it, the court’s recognition of the approach has opened the door for this framework to be applied and debated in future cases, potentially transforming how employment contracts are drafted and enforced throughout Canada.
