In Ho v. Monk Office Supply Ltd., 2026 BCSC 1324, the BC Supreme Court awarded four months' reasonable notice to a corporate controller who had been employed for only two-and-a-half months before being terminated without cause. Beyond the notable award, the decision highlights the growing importance of re-employability, rather than seniority alone, in assessing reasonable notice.
The Decision
Mr. Ho was hired as a corporate controller in April 2024 and dismissed without cause in June 2024. Following his dismissal, it took Mr. Ho approximately five months to secure another corporate controller position, and he did so at a reduced salary. Because his employment agreement did not contain an enforceable termination clause, the Court was required to determine reasonable notice at common law.
The Court confirmed that the typical reasonable notice range for employees with less than 18 months of service remains two to three months but emphasized that the range is only a starting point. Given Mr. Ho’s prolonged job search and lower-paying replacement employment, the Court awarded four months’ notice.
The "Character of Employment"
Historically, courts have treated managerial and senior positions as warranting longer notice on the assumption that comparable employment is harder to obtain. The Court in Ho questioned the continued importance of seniority as an independent factor, noting that higher-paid employees already receive proportionately greater compensation during any given notice period and that longer notice awards should not automatically follow a more senior title. Instead, the focus should be on whether the employee’s role makes obtaining comparable employment more difficult. In other words, seniority matters because it may affect re-employability, not simply because of an employee's place in the organizational hierarchy.
Even though Mr. Ho’s position was not supervisory nor senior management, the Court found that his position involved considerable trust, responsibility, and interaction with senior leadership, making it significant within the organization.
No Duty to Provide Reasons
The Court also dismissed Mr. Ho's claim for aggravated damages. Although he experienced genuine distress following his termination, the evidence demonstrated that the employer conducted the dismissal privately, discreetly, and in good faith.
In finding this, the Court reaffirmed that employers terminating non-unionized employees without cause are not required to provide a warning nor reasons for their decision and failing to do so does not constitute bad faith.
Takeaways for Employers
- The two-to-three-month notice range for short-service employees is only a starting point.
- Courts may focus increasingly on an employee's re-employability and the significance of their role rather than formal seniority.
- Employers generally do not need to provide reasons, warnings, or progressive discipline when terminating a non-unionized employee without cause.
Ho demonstrates that even very short-service employees may receive substantial notice awards where finding comparable employment proves difficult. Every termination presents unique considerations. If you have questions about this decision or managing workplace risk, please contact a member of our Labour & Employment Group and we would be pleased to assist.