FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 202008 ONCA 479, 91 O.R. (3d) 447, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [2008]S.C.C.A. No. 294, and Soye v. Corinthian Colleges Inc., 2009 ONCA 297, arebinding authority on point and must be followed. I disagree. These decisions donot decide the issue before the court on this appeal.(3) Concerns regarding an employee’s “golden parachute” or anypotential unfairness to the employer are without merit[51] The respondent raises the spectre of the appellant receiving a double2012 ONCA 425 (CanLII)payment, which they refer to pejoratively as a “golden parachute”. To be clear,there is no “double payment” in the sense that the respondent is paying twice.Nor is the entitlement under the Employment Agreement “golden” as it restrictsdamages to a maximum of 12 months of base salary, and does not include thebonus or other benefits.[52] It is noteworthy that in the sports, entertainment and senior managementfields it is commonplace for such contractual provisions to not be subject tomitigation. Where the rich, famous, and powerful are involved, there is nosuggestion that such payments are unfair to the other contracting party, evenwhere there is, in effect, total mitigation of the loss. A contract is a contract, andit is expected that it will be honoured. Nothing short of this can be countenancedwhere the terminated employee is less privileged.[53] The words of the Alberta Court of Appeal in Brown, at para. 47, bearrepeating: