We are pleased to announce a major win for our client, a 51-year-old Senior Product Manager with 4.5 years’ service earning $150k USD annually. The Court awarded him 6 months plus over $90,000 in RSUs and stock-options.
Four critical ambiguities identified by the Court:
1. The plan’s trigger phrase “in the event of termination of your Service” conflicted with statutory notice requirements under the ESA —wrongful dismissal doesn’t always end employment on the date that notice is given.
2. The clause prohibiting vesting when the employee is “no longer actively providing services” echoed wording struck down in Matthews v. Ocean Nutrition Canada Ltd., 2020 SCC 26, which was insufficient to deny awards during the notice period.
3 .A discretionary forfeiture clause granted a Committee “exclusive discretion” to decide if the employee remained “actively providing services,” including during leave – unfettered discretion that the court treated as ambiguous.
3. The plane’s drafting was opaque and convoluted, requiring “cutting and pasting” territory-specific provisions to determine rights. Given the unequal bargaining power, the Court held employers must draft more clearly.
Additionally, simply clicking “Accept” of the grant award, was sufficient evidence that the employee had read, understood and accepted the terms, rather than just the award itself.
The Court awarded Mr. Liggett $90,672.48 USD based on the employee’s historical selling patterns for publicly traded stock to approximate market value on the expected vesting dates.