As you may recall from
our blog earlier this year, the case of Cormier v.
St. Joseph Communications involved a wrongful dismissal case
that challenged a termination clause on the basis of its treatment
of benefit continuation, which included a (relatively common)
reference to benefit continuation being "subject to the
consent of the Company's insurers." Notwithstanding
the argument that is the insurer and not the employer that provides
the actual group insurance benefits, the motions judge decided in
favour of Ms. Cormier and deemed the termination clause
invalid.
Termination Language Fails
The Court of Appeal agreed, holding:
We find no palpable and overriding error in the motion
judge's interpretation of the impugned clause within the
employment contract. He concluded that it allowed the employer
"upon termination to provide [the respondent] with only some
of the employee benefits that she received before termination and
even then, only subject to the
