Subscribe to our newsletters
Boyle v. Salesforce: Why Using a Global Employment Contract Is a Risk You Cannot Afford to Take
Multinational companies frequently make the mistake of assuming that a globally standardized employment contract will hold up in Ontario. The March 2025 decision in Boyle v. Salesforce.com (2025 ONSC 2580) confirms it will not. The Ontario Superior Court found Salesforce's global employment agreement unenforceable in Ontario primarily because its termination clause was ambiguous as to ESA compliance, incorporated US-style at-will employment concepts not recognized in Ontario, and left the employee unable to understand his termination entitlements at the time of signing. The result: eight months of common law reasonable notice plus bonuses, benefits, and other compensation that would have been capped by a compliant termination clause.
Does your organization use a global or US-style employment agreement for Ontario employees?
At-will employment language and global termination provisions are not recognized in Ontario and will void your termination clause. Every Ontario employee needs a contract drafted specifically for Ontario law. Get your agreements reviewed now.
Call: 1-800-771-7882 Get Your Contracts ReviewedWhat happened
The plaintiff was a senior success signature engineer who had been employed by Salesforce for approximately eight years when he was terminated without cause as part of a global reduction in force affecting over 3,000 employees. He first learned of his termination when a colleague texted to advise he had been deactivated on Slack he was on holiday at the time. Written notice followed by email. He brought a wrongful dismissal claim, arguing the termination clause was unenforceable and that he was entitled to 14 months of common law notice, bonus payments, and additional damages for the manner of the termination.
What the Court found
The global contract was unenforceable in Ontario
The Court found the employment agreement designed for use across multiple jurisdictions created a situation where no Ontario employee could reasonably understand their termination entitlements at the time of signing. The contract incorporated at-will employment language, which has no legal meaning in Ontario, and referenced documents designed for global application. The ambiguity as to ESA compliance rendered the termination clause unenforceable. The Court was pointed in its criticism: the employer's choice to use a single contract across jurisdictions created the problem.
Ambiguity as to ESA compliance is enough to void the clause
The Court confirmed that a termination clause does not need to explicitly violate the ESA to be unenforceable ambiguity as to whether it complies is sufficient. Where a reasonable employee reading the clause could not determine with confidence that it meets ESA minimums, courts will treat it as void. This is consistent with the line of Ontario cases including Dufault v. Township of Ignace (2024 ONCA 915) and reinforces that compliance must be apparent on the face of the clause.
Bonuses and benefits were owed during the notice period
The employer argued its bonus plan excluded terminated employees. It produced no evidence to support this. The Court awarded the 2023 fiscal year bonus and a pro-rated bonus over the notice period, along with pro-rated group benefits, RRSP contributions, and vacation pay. Where bonuses and benefits are integral to compensation and the employer cannot produce clear, enforceable plan terms excluding terminated employees from entitlement, they will be owed through the notice period.
Mitigation and document production affected the damages award
The Court initially assessed reasonable notice at 11 months. The employee applied to 18 jobs before pivoting to further training imperfect but not unreasonable. However, he refused to produce tax documents during litigation and the Court drew an adverse inference, reducing the notice period to 8 months. Withholding documents that bear on income earned during the notice period is not a risk worth taking courts will draw the inference that the documents would have worked against the employee's position.
Four employer lessons from this decision
Ontario employees need Ontario-specific contracts
At-will employment is a US legal concept. It has no application in Ontario and courts treat its inclusion in an Ontario employment contract as a sign that the contract was not designed for Ontario law. Any contract that incorporates at-will language, references global policies without Ontario-specific carve-outs, or uses termination provisions designed for multiple jurisdictions is vulnerable to the same finding made in Boyle. If your organization uses a global or US-drafted template for Ontario employees, this is a compliance issue that needs to be addressed immediately not at the time of the next termination.
Bonus and benefit plan terms must explicitly address termination
Where a bonus or benefit is an integral part of compensation, an employee will generally be entitled to receive it during the notice period unless the plan documents clearly and lawfully exclude terminated employees from entitlement. The employer in Boyle made this argument but could not support it with evidence. Ensure your bonus and benefit plan documents explicitly address what happens on termination, that the exclusion language is drafted in compliance with Ontario law, and that these documents are maintained and accessible at the time of any termination.
Manner of termination matters even when it does not attract additional damages
The employee in Boyle found out about his termination via a text from a colleague who noticed he had been deactivated on Slack he was on holiday at the time. The Court found this was not ideal but stopped short of awarding bad faith damages given the scale of the global reduction in force. Employers should not treat this as licence for impersonal terminations. In cases involving smaller-scale dismissals or long-service employees, the same conduct could attract aggravated damages. A respectful, in-person or at minimum direct and private communication is both legally safer and professionally appropriate.
Mitigation document requests should be made early in any litigation
The 3-month reduction in the notice award in Boyle resulted directly from the employee's refusal to produce tax documents. Courts draw adverse inferences from this refusal and so should employers. Where a wrongful dismissal claim is filed, request financial and income documentation from the employee as early as the litigation process permits. The sooner you establish what the employee earned during the notice period, the sooner you can assess the realistic settlement range and limit your exposure.
Does your organization use a global or multi-jurisdiction employment agreement for Ontario employees?
Global contracts with at-will language or ESA-ambiguous termination clauses are unenforceable in Ontario and default your exposure to common law reasonable notice. Our team advises employers on employment agreements and termination clause compliance. Get your contracts reviewed before your next termination.
Get Your Contracts Reviewed Or call us: 1-800-771-7882Practical takeaways for Ontario employers
Questions about employment contract compliance or termination clause enforceability in Ontario?
Our team advises employers across Ontario on employment agreements, termination clause drafting, and wrongful dismissal risk management. Contact us for a confidential consultation before your next termination or new hire.
Call us at 1-800-771-7882 or fill out the form below and we will be in touch.
The article in this client update provides general information and should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. This publication is copyrighted by Achkar Law Professional Corporation and may not be photocopied or reproduced in any form, in whole or in part, without the express permission of Achkar Law Professional Corporation. ©