Facts:

• Karen Dufault was employed as Youth Engagement Coordinator.
• Her fixed-term contract, signed on November 24, 2022, ended on December 31, 2024.
• She was terminated without cause on January 26, 2023, receiving two weeks’ termination pay and benefits.

Plaintiff’s Claims:

• Dufault sought damages for the remaining contract term, arguing the termination clause was illegal under the Employment Standards Act (ESA).

Defendant’s Position:

• The Township argued the termination clause was compliant with the ESA and Dufault was compensated correctly.

Key Issues:

1. Is the termination clause enforceable?
2. What are the plaintiff’s entitlements if the clause is not enforceable?
3. Has the defendant fulfilled its obligations under the contract and ESA?

Legal Principles Applied:

• Employment contracts must comply with the ESA and be interpreted in favor of the employee.
• Clauses that contravene the ESA are void.

Court’s Analysis:

• The termination clauses were too broad and did not comply with the ESA, particularly regarding termination for cause and exclusion of certain statutory entitlements like vacation pay.

Decision:

• The court awarded Dufault $157,071.57 for 101 weeks of base salary and benefits, less amounts already paid.
• Damages Breakdown:
  • Base Salary (101 weeks): $145,673.31
  • Benefits (101 weeks): $14,567.33
  • Less Termination Pay and Benefits Paid: ($3,169.07)
  • Total Damages: $157,071.57

Dufault is also entitled to pre-judgment interest, with costs to be determined if not agreed upon.