By Barry W. Kwasniewski and Martin U. Wissmath

Retirement Plans Are Not Resignation, Can Limit Reasonable Notice, says B.C. Supreme Court

Employers across Canada should take note: a vague reference to retirement is not a resignation, but an employee’s firm plan to retire soon may shorten their common-law notice entitlement. In Gent v. Askanda Business Services Ltd., decided on July 9, 2025, the British Columbia Supreme Court held that a 63-year-old long-serving employee was wrongfully dismissed when not recalled after a COVID-19 layoff. Yet, because the employee had firmly planned to retire at 65, the Court limited his notice entitlement to six months. While a British Columbia case, the reasoning aligns with approaches taken by Ontario courts and may serve as persuasive precedent, especially for charities and not-for-profits managing older, long-tenured staff.

Bradley Gent (the “Employee”) had worked for Askanda Business Services Ltd. (the “Employer”) since 1987, mostly as its only employee, servicing draft-beer systems for restaurants and bars. When the sector shut down in March 2020, he was 63 and was temporarily laid off. On May 31, 2020, during a brief call with the owner, the Employee said he “might as well just retire.” He denied having resigned, and the Employer never confirmed his intent in writing. The Employee collected CERB and then EI benefits, but was not recalled. In October 2021 he inquired about severance and later sued for wrongful dismissal.

The Court reaffirmed the principle that resignation requires “a clear and unequivocal act” to end the employment relationship. According to established precedent, equivocal or offhand statements are insufficient, and employers bear a duty to clarify ambiguous words with the employee before treating employment as ended. Applying those precedents, the Court held that the Employee’s words in this case did not meet the threshold for voluntary resignation. By failing to recall him after the maximum layoff period, the Employer effectively dismissed him.

On the question of the termination date, the Court applied the fairness-based approach developed in earlier pandemic layoff cases. Rather than fixing the date at the initial layoff or the later point when the Employee accepted he had been dismissed, the Court chose September 1, 2021, when his employment insurance ended and when he would most likely have agreed to continue on layoff if asked. Based on the Employee’s consistent evidence that he always planned to retire at 65, the Court found that, given his 65^th birthday was in February 2022, the Employee most likely would not have worked beyond March 2022. That intention capped his reasonable notice entitlement to six months’ notice.

The Court concluded that the Employee had not resigned and had been wrongfully dismissed. His damages were calculated at $14,500, representing six months’ average wages, but no punitive damages were awarded.

For Ontario employers in the charity and not-for-profit sector, the case reinforces two important points. First, resignation requires clarity; employers cannot rely on ambiguous retirement talk and must confirm the employee’s intentions. Second, where there is credible evidence that an employee would have retired within months, courts may limit common-law notice accordingly. The message is consistent across jurisdictions: employers should not assume resignation, but retirement intentions can still shape liability.

Ontario Bill Proposes New ESA Leave and Layoff Rules Under Working for Workers Seven Act

Ontario has tabled the Working for Workers Seven Act, 2025 (“Bill 30”), which passed First Reading on May 28, 2025. The proposed legislation continues the government’s pattern of expanding employee protections while creating fresh compliance duties for employers across the province. In particular, Bill 30 would create a new unpaid “job-seeking leave” for workers impacted by mass terminations and permit extended temporary layoffs of up to 52 weeks with employee consent and government approval.

Bill 30 would amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 to give employees affected by a mass termination of 50 or more workers within a four-week period up to three unpaid days of leave to seek new work or retraining. It also provides for extended temporary layoffs of up to 52 weeks within a 78-week span, but only with the consent of affected employees and the approval of the Director of Employment Standards. Online job-posting platforms would be required to develop systems for reporting fraudulent postings and to maintain written policies to address job-ad fraud.

Bill 30 also proposes changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. It would introduce an administrative monetary penalty regime, allowing enforcement officers to levy fines directly without resort to court proceedings. Employers required to install workplace defibrillators may also be reimbursed by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board for those costs.

Amendments to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 under Bill 30 would make it an offence to provide false or misleading statements to the WSIB, and maximum fines would increase to $750,000 for repeat violations. The legislation also introduces aggravating factors to guide the determination of penalties.

For Ontario employers, including charities and not-for-profits, the message is that compliance expectations continue to expand. Bill 30 remains at the First Reading stage and further amendments can be expected before it receives Royal Assent, but it suggests more stringent oversight and heavier penalties.

​Read the August 2025 Charity & NFP Law Update