The Ontario Court of Appeal has granted the Ontario Chamber of Commerce (OCC) leave to intervene in a wrongful dismissal case involving Van Dolder’s Home Team, finding the appeal raises employment law issues with broad public policy implications for Ontario employers and employees.
The decision allows the OCC to participate as a friend of the court in Baker v. Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc., an appeal stemming from an Ontario Superior Court ruling that invalidated both the “without cause” and “with cause” termination clauses in the employment agreement of a former employee.
The Canadian Association of Counsel to Employers (CACE), which also sought intervener status, was denied leave due to concerns over duplicative arguments and the perception of imbalance in a dispute between a private individual and a corporate defendant supported by multiple large organizations.
Termination clauses struck down
The case arose after Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc. dismissed the worker on a without cause basis. The motion judge found that the employment contract’s termination clause was unenforceable because it violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) by purporting to allow the employer to terminate employment “at any time.”
The judge also struck down the “with cause” clause for two reasons: it allowed for termination “at any time” for cause, and it failed to distinguish between the ESA’s “wilful misconduct” standard—which governs when employees lose minimum entitlements—and the broader common law concept of just cause.
As a result, the court denied Van Dolder’s motion to dismiss the wrongful dismissal action brought by the worker, identified in court as Frederick Baker.
Public interest factors justified intervention
Although the underlying dispute is a private one, the Court of Appeal found the case engages broader legal and policy questions, including the proper interpretation of termination clauses and the remedial purpose of the ESA.
“I am persuaded that this appeal raises such broader implications and that a more relaxed standard should be applied in assessing the motions to intervene,” the court wrote.
Citing Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd. and other decisions, the court noted that contractual clauses allowing dismissal “at any time” are common, but recent decisions have cast doubt on their compliance with employment standards legislation. The court pointed to its own decision in Dufault v. Ignace (Township) as an example.
“This appeal also engages public policy issues, including the remedial purposes of the ESA and its aim of protecting employees, and the policy grounds for interpreting termination clauses in a way that encourages employers to draft agreements that comply with the ESA,” the court wrote.
OCC permitted, CACE denied
The court accepted that both the OCC and CACE are reputable organizations with a history of meaningful contributions to labour and employment law. However, it concluded that allowing both to intervene would risk an appearance of unfairness and could compromise the hearing’s balance.
While CACE represents over 1,400 management-side employment lawyers across Canada, the OCC—with its network of 150 local chambers and 60,000 members—was found to have a more direct and substantial interest in Ontario’s economic and regulatory landscape.
“I am also concerned that, while the submissions of the Proposed Interveners are distinct from those of the appellant, they overlap to a significant extent with each other,” the court said.
Ultimately, the court granted the OCC permission to file a 15-page factum and make 10 minutes of oral argument at the hearing. The worker will be allowed to file a supplementary 15-page factum in response and will receive an additional 10 minutes of oral argument time. The OCC must take the record as it is and avoid duplicating the employer’s submissions.
No costs were awarded to or against either intervener.
For more information, see Baker v. Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc., 2025 ONCA 578 (CanLII).
