Worked Only Ten Days, Yet Awarded Three Months' Pay in Compensation!
A recent decision, Yadav v. Ahangama, 2026 CanLII 48313 (ON SCSM), in which an employee sued a former employer, could be said to shatter the myth that "employees can be dismissed at will during a probationary period."
In this case, the plaintiff had seen the defendant's job posting for a "real estate law clerk" position on a job-search website. The posting stated they were looking for a senior clerk with two to five years of experience, but also welcomed applicants with a law clerk diploma or other legal experience. The plaintiff duly submitted his resume, which honestly noted that he had previously worked as a lawyer in India, and that after arriving in Canada he had gained roughly eight months of local law clerk experience and was currently pursuing a related course of study.
At the interview, the plaintiff informed the supervising lawyer that he was in the process of obtaining accreditation for his overseas legal qualifications, and planned to eventually be called to the bar in Ontario. After the interview, the defendant sent the plaintiff an offer letter, which included a "three-month probationary period" clause.
A few days after starting, the defendant asked the plaintiff how long he could commit to working for the company; the plaintiff promised to stay for at least a year and a half. The defendant then also verbally required that, should the plaintiff wish to resign in the future, he must give the company "three months' advance notice." A few days after that, the plaintiff took a day off to attend an examination; upon returning to the office the next day, he was assigned a real estate file to handle independently. The defendant felt the plaintiff showed a complete lack of understanding of how to handle it, and on the grounds that "the company needs more senior staff," dismissed the plaintiff — who had by then worked there for only ten days — without warning and without cause.
The night he was dismissed, the plaintiff sent multiple emails expressing his shock, pointing out that he had turned down at least four other job offers based on the company's assurance of continued employment, and demanded two months' salary as compensation. The defendant replied insisting that the plaintiff was still on probation and had performed poorly, and that under the law they were only required to pay wages for the actual days worked. The plaintiff subsequently formally commenced an action in Small Claims Court.
At trial, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant's conduct amounted to wrongful dismissal. Based on the fact that it took him a full four and a half months after losing his job to find new employment, the plaintiff sought $15,000 in damages for wrongful dismissal (equivalent to four and a half months' salary), plus outstanding wages owed and other punitive damages.
The defendant, in turn, argued that under the probationary period clause in the employment contract, the defendant was entitled to terminate the employment relationship at any time during the probationary period without cause, without advance notice, and without pay in lieu of notice. Even if the court found that a notice period was required, the defendant argued the compensation should be limited to two weeks' pay.
Ultimately, the judge ruled in favour of the plaintiff's claim of wrongful dismissal. The defendant was ordered to pay three months' pay in lieu of notice, set at $10,000; together with wages actually owed for the ten days worked and pre-judgment interest, the total award exceeded $12,000.
In the ruling, the judge noted that for an employer to dismiss an employee during a probationary period, two important conditions must be satisfied:
The employer must, acting in good faith, make an honest assessment that the employee is unsuitable for the permanent position.
The employer must give the employee a "fair and reasonable" opportunity to demonstrate their abilities.
In this case, the plaintiff, within a mere ten days, received no job training whatsoever, no feedback on his work performance, and no verbal warnings — and even the "performance evaluation" explicitly promised in the contract was never actually carried out. After the plaintiff struggled with his first file, the defendant abruptly terminated him the very next day — conduct that the court found amounted to "a failure to provide a fair opportunity" during the probationary period.
At the same time, the judge reaffirmed that, although section 54 of Ontario's Employment Standards Act provides that no statutory termination pay is owed for employment of less than three months, the provisions of the Employment Standards Act do not automatically override the common law duty to provide reasonable notice. Unless the parties have signed a termination clause that is legally valid and clearly excludes common law entitlements, common law protections continue to extend to short-term employees who have worked less than three months.
In calculating damages, the judge decided to take into account the fact that the defendant had itself required the plaintiff to give three months' advance notice if he wished to resign: since the employer itself considered three months to be a reasonable notice period for resignation from this position, then, on principles of mutuality and fairness, three months was equally an appropriate corresponding period of compensation when the employer wrongfully dismissed the employee.
As the above illustrates, this case serves as a reminder to employers that a probationary period does not mean an employee can be dismissed at will; at the same time, it also encourages employees to fight for the rights they are entitled to.
Worth noting: the plaintiff represented himself throughout the litigation, and going through the entire trial process was a valuable experience for him as a fledgling lawyer, allowing him to personally experience what a lawsuit actually involves in practice — and, all the more remarkably, he won a beautifully fought case!