--0000000000001b26a205ee14b0bd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Steve, I will go with what you are suggesting. Thank you for the clarification. Best regards, Matt Matt Vijayan, B.Sc., MBA, CCPE Director of Sales, Canada *Please note my email has changed:* mvijayan@TheKey.com TheKey.com [image: TheKey] On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 1:59 PM Steve Koyanagi wrote= : > We can take the position that termination for performance will be "just > cause" under applicable provincial law and our Canadian employment > agreement. Our template Canadian employment agreement for non-caregivers > includes the following as part of the definition for cause: "the > Employee=E2=80=99s failure to competently perform the material duties of = the > position after being given written notice of such failure, and a reasonab= le > opportunity to improve to the standards expected." > > With anything, this can be challenged and subject to legal action, but it > is a defensible position that termination for performance is just cause. > > Happy to discuss further as needed. Also looping in Tim and Shameema for > this discussion. > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 9:04 AM Matt Vijayan wrote: > >> Hi Steve, >> >> Welcome back! I hope you had a relaxing vacation. >> >> I am not a legal expert and I have had situations when I used to own a >> few HCA franchises where I had retained law firms. Termination without >> cause seems to be a logical choice in Canada for employers, if we go in >> that direction (with a severance package of course). In spite of these >> warnings and extensive documentation, when it is time to terminate an >> employee, would that be "with cause"? >> >> I am bringing Ashley Mirone into this discussion as well. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Matt >> >> Matt Vijayan, B.Sc., MBA, CCPE >> Director of Sales, Canada >> *Please note my email has changed:* >> mvijayan@TheKey.com >> >> TheKey.com >> [image: TheKey] >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 11:38 AM Steve Koyanagi >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Matt, >>> >>> Just getting back from vacation today. I removed the sentence below >>> related to at-will employment. Otherwise, I think the proposed languag= e >>> looks good as we will argue that after this written warning the termina= tion >>> will be for "cause." Let me know if you want to discuss further. >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 8:45 AM Matt Vijayan >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Steve, >>>> >>>> Need your guidance. >>>> >>>> Can you please confirm that this practice is valid as per the >>>> Employment Standards in Canada? In case of constructive dismissal, wil= l we >>>> be challenged on some verbiage from the Labour Board in the Provinces? >>>> >>>> *"Effective immediately, you are placed on a 30-day PIP. During this >>>> time you will be expected to make regular progress on the plan outline= d >>>> above. Failure to meet and maintain these expectations or any other of= your >>>> role may result in further disciplinary action, up to and includ