Chan v NYX Capital Corp., 2025 ONSC 4561 – A Case Comment
Factual Background: Chan was hired in October 2021 by NYX Capital Corp. (a small real estate investment firm) as Vice-President of Acquisitions and Asset Management and Chief Compliance Officer. He was 47 years old, earned about $175,000/year, and had roughly 15 years’ industry experience. His employment agreement included a three-month probationary period, during which NYX could terminate his employment “at any time and for any reason” without notice or pay. One day before that probationary period was to end (in January 2022), NYX terminated Chan’s employment.
Legal Issues: Notice Period
After holding the probationary period did not apply, Chan was entitled to full common-law notice. In determining reasonable notice, the judge applied the usual Bardal factors. Although Chan had only ~3 months’ service and was not a senior executive, the court recognized that very short-tenure employees face hiring disadvantages (having to explain a quick dismissal). The Court applied the Bardal v. Globe & Mail factors to fix the notice period: length of service, age, character of employment, and availability of similar work.
Length of service: Chan had only 3 months’ service. Ordinarily, very short service would suggest a short notice period. However, courts have increasingly recognized that exceptionally short tenures often warrant notice longer than the length of service, because they create a hurdle in finding new work.
Age: Chan was 47 years old. Although not near retirement, he was middle-aged, which can slow re-employment relative to a younger worker.
Position/Character: Chan held a senior management role (VP of Acquisitions & Compliance) with specialized duties. The Court noted that his position carried significant responsibility and expertise.
Availability of Similar Employment: The judge emphasized that very short service can actually worsen a candidate’s job prospects, because prospective employers will wonder why the last job ended so abruptly. In Chan’s case, having only three months at NYX meant he would need to “explain to prospective employers why he was terminated so soon,” a point the Court stressed. Citing Grimaldi v CF+D Custom Fireplace Design Inc (2023), where a 5-month employee got 5.5 months’ notice for the same reason, the judge held that this factor favoured a longer notice than his brief tenure.
Conclusion
In sum, although Chan’s length of service was short, his age, high-level/specialized role, and the market difficulty of explaining a 3-month stint tipped the balance toward a relatively generous notice period.
The Court awarded 3 months’ reasonable notice. This notice period encompassed Chan’s salary, benefits continuation and other lost entitlements. The court explicitly awarded $44,644.46, representing three months’ base salary (and benefits/exam fees).
*Always seek legal advice. The above is for information purposes only.
Stephen Dugandzic received his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Alberta in 2013 and is Calgary-based. He previously practised with Bennett Jones LLP and Taylor Janis LLP before founding YYC Employment Law Group in 2018 and Evolution Legal in 2026.