In the case of Yadav v. Ahangama Law Professional Corporation, 2026 CanLII 48313 (ON SCSM), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice clarified that probationary employees are not deprived of their right to reasonable notice under common law. The decision confirms that, unless a contract states otherwise, employers must act in good faith and provide a fair and reasonable opportunity for a probationary employee to demonstrate their suitability for a role.
Background
Ashish Yadav, a foreign-trained lawyer, was hired as a Real Estate Law Clerk by Ahangama Law Professional Corporation, a small Ontario firm. His employment agreement specified a three-month probationary period but lacked a termination clause allowing for dismissal without notice.
Mr. Yadav began work on February 1, 2021. Just ten days later, and after handling only one real estate file independently, he was dismissed. The employer alleged that it had become apparent Mr. Yadav lacked the necessary experience to manage files independently. Crucially, no performance feedback, training, or warnings were provided during his brief tenure.
The Law
The case examined the modern legal framework governing probationary employment:
- Duty of Good Faith: The court noted that modern law has evolved away from the harsh approach where probationary employees had no rights. Employers now have a duty to act in good faith during the probationary period.
- Fair Opportunity to Demonstrate Suitability: An employer may only terminate a probationary employee without notice if they have provided a fair and reasonable opportunity to show suitability for the position. This includes assessing character, judgment, and reliability, often against established standards.
- Common Law vs. ESA: As affirmed in Chan v. NYX Capital Corp, 2025 ONSC 4561, while the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) does not require notice for employees with less than three months of service, this does not displace the common-law right to reasonable notice unless a valid contract stipulates otherwise.
The Court’s Decision
The Court found that the law firm had wrongfully dismissed Mr. Yadav, concluding that a ten- day probationary period was insufficient to properly assess his suitability for the role. In particular, he was never informed of the performance standards he was expected to meet and was not provided with any feedback, coaching, or opportunity to improve. The employer’s belief that it could terminate him at any time during probation without notice was found to be based on a mistaken understanding of the law.
As a result, the Court awarded Mr. Yadav three months’ reasonable notice ($10,000), despite his having worked only ten days. In reaching this figure, the Court applied the well-established principle that short-service employees are entitled to proportionately longer notice periods relative to their tenure, recognizing that a very brief period of employment can make the search for comparable work more difficult, as the employee must explain to prospective employers why they were terminated so soon after being hired. The Court also considered Mr. Yadav’s age, the specialized nature of the position, and the fact that he had declined other employment opportunities to join the firm.
The Court further ordered payment of $1,095.89 in unpaid wages for the ten days Mr. Yadav worked, which had been withheld due to a dispute regarding his Social Insurance Number, as
well as $1,735.95 in pre-judgment interest to compensate for the five-year delay between his termination and the judgment.
However, claims for mental distress and punitive damages were dismissed. The Court determined that the employer’s conduct stemmed from a misguided but genuine belief about probationary employment rights rather than any malicious intent, and that Mr. Yadav had not provided medical or other evidence sufficient to support a claim for mental or emotional distress.
Takeaways
This decision serves as an important reminder for Ontario employers and employees: employers cannot arbitrarily dismiss probationary employees without notice unless they have acted in good faith, provided a fair opportunity to succeed, and meaningfully assessed the employee’s suitability. To justify a dismissal on the basis of unsuitability, employers should establish clear performance expectations, provide feedback, and document performance management efforts throughout the probationary period. Furthermore, while the ESA does not require notice for employees with less than three months of continuous service, the case law is clear that this statutory threshold does not displace the common-law obligation to provide reasonable notice. If an employer intends to limit a probationary employee’s notice entitlement to the ESA minimum, it must include a valid and enforceable termination clause in the employment contract. The decision also highlights that even employees with very short periods of service may be entitled to significant reasonable notice, particularly where the circumstances of their dismissal make it more difficult to obtain comparable employment.
Contact JPAK Employment Lawyers for more information on your rights regarding probationary
periods, wrongful dismissal, and employment contracts.
