Why American-Style Termination Clauses Fail in Ontario: Lessons from Boyle v. Salesforce.com

I see a steady stream of Ontario employees and employers grappling with the fallout of poorly drafted, one-size-fits-all employment contracts. The recent decision in Boyle v. Salesforce.com, 2025 ONSC 2580, is a powerful reminder that what works south of the border-or in a global HR playbook-can spell disaster in Ontario.

The Salesforce Story: When “At Will” Meets the ESA

Mr. Boyle, a senior engineer, spent nearly eight years at Salesforce.com Canada. When Salesforce decided to lay off around 10% of its workforce, Mr. Boyle was among those let go. The company relied on a termination clause lifted from its U.S.-centric employment agreement, which stated that employment could be ended “at will,” with or without cause, and that the company owed nothing beyond accrued salary and vacation if it determined there was “cause.” The contract also referenced global policies, suggested employees consult the company’s legal department if they had questions, and generally left the door open for ambiguity.

Mr. Boyle learned of his termination in a particularly impersonal way-while on holiday, through a colleague’s text about his Slack account being deactivated. Not only was the process cold, but the contract’s language left him uncertain about his entitlements under Ontario law.

The Court’s Ruling: Ambiguity Is Fatal

Justice Brownstone’s decision was unequivocal: the termination clause was unenforceable. The court found that the contract’s ambiguity-created by Salesforce’s attempt to use a single agreement for multiple jurisdictions-meant Mr. Boyle could not have known, when signing, what rules would actually govern his dismissal. The clause’s reference to “at will” employment, which is not recognized in Ontario, and the suggestion to consult the company’s legal department, were particularly problematic. As the court put it:

“There is no practical way that an employee in Ontario could be aware, when signing the contract, of the terms that would govern his termination. … It is impractical to expect a potential employee, who has not yet started employment, to consult the future employer’s lawyer before signing an employment agreement to understand what kind of misconduct, if any, is cause for termination.”

Because the clause failed to clearly comply with Ontario’s Employment Standards Act (ESA)-or at least was ambiguous about compliance-it was struck down. Mr. Boyle was awarded eight months’ pay in lieu of notice, plus pro-rated bonuses and benefits.

Why This Matters: Ontario Is Not “At Will”

We routinely advise both employees and employers that Ontario’s employment law is fundamentally different from the American “at will” doctrine. Here, employers can terminate without cause, but only if they provide proper notice or pay in lieu, as set out in the ESA-and, often, at common law, which can mean much more than the ESA minimums. Any contract that tries to sidestep these requirements, or that muddies the waters with unclear or contradictory language, risks being tossed out by the courts.

I’ve seen similar scenarios in our practice: multinational companies rolling out global contracts that fail to account for Ontario’s unique protections. Employees are left confused about their rights, and employers find themselves exposed to significant liability when their contracts are found unenforceable.

The Takeaway: Draft for Ontario, Not “Everywhere”

We routinely advise both employees and employers that Ontario’s employment law is fundamentally different from the American “at will” doctrine. Here, employers can terminate without cause, but only if they provide proper notice or pay in lieu, as set out in the ESA-and, often, at common law, which can mean much more than the ESA minimums. Any contract that tries to sidestep these requirements, or that muddies the waters with unclear or contradictory language, risks being tossed out by the courts.

I’ve seen similar scenarios in our practice: multinational companies rolling out global contracts that fail to account for Ontario’s unique protections. Employees are left confused about their rights, and employers find themselves exposed to significant liability when their contracts are found unenforceable.

The lesson from Boyle v. Salesforce.com is clear: employers must tailor their termination clauses to the jurisdiction where their employees work. Ontario courts demand clarity and strict compliance with the ESA. Vague references to global policies, “at will” language, or suggestions that employees consult company lawyers are not just unhelpful-they can be fatal to the enforceability of a contract. Don’t let an American-based clause bite the dust at your expense.

Share via:

Saad Mirza

Saad Mirza

Hi! beautiful people. I`m an authtor of this blog. Read our post – stay with us

Download the 7 Common Severance Mistakes Checklist

Severance Package Red Flags” Checklist

You have been successfully Subscribed! Ops! Something went wrong, please try again.

Follow Us

Copyright © 2025 All Rights Reserved By Thrive Law