Call Us Now


Antunes v Limen Structures Ltd, 2015 ONSC 2163: Employers beware, honesty is the best policy when making offers of employment.

Posted On: December, 28 2015

The Ontario Superior Court’s recent decision in Antunes v Limen Structures Ltd is an important caution to employers who embellish the attributes of their company or a particular position when courting future employees. This decision makes clear that the general duty of honesty in contractual performance can impact an employer’s liability for compensation in lieu of reasonable notice upon termination.

The plaintiff, John Antunes started working as a Senior Vice President of Operations/Concrete Forming with the defendant, Limen Structures Ltd (“Limen”), on May 28, 2012. After just over five months, and without prior notice, Mr. Antunes was terminated without cause on November 9, 2012.

Mr. Antunes’ employment agreement provided that he would be compensated with a starting salary of $150,000 per year, which was to increase to $200,000 after his first year of employment. In addition, he was to receive 5% of Limen’s shares, with the potential for another 5% of the shares of Limen’s Residential Division within a year of the commencement of his employment. Lastly, the employment agreement provided for up to 12 months’ pay in lieu of notice for termination.

At the date of his termination, no shares had been issued to Mr. Antunes.

Prior to signing the employment agreement, Mr. Antunes discussed the terms of his employment with Mr. Lima during numerous phone calls and two in-person meetings. During these discussions, Mr. Lima advised Mr. Antunes that the company, in his opinion, was worth $10 million.  Mr. Antunes relied on Mr. Lima’s representation, along with the promise of company shares, when he agreed to sign an employment agreement with Limen on May 28, 2012.

At trial, Mr. Antunes testified that shortly after starting at Limen, he realized that the company was not worth $10 million. Limen did not call Mr. Lima, or any other witness at trial. Given that he was as a material witness with direct and relevant knowledge of the value of the company and the negotiation of Mr. Antunes’ employment agreement, Justice Brown drew an adverse inference from Mr. Lima’s failure to testify.

Ultimately, Justice Brown awarded Mr. Antunes 8 months’ reasonable notice. In determining the amount of reasonable notice owing to Mr. Antunes, Justice Brown applied the well-established factors for determining the reasonable notice period as set out Bardal v Globe & Mail Ltd (1960), 23 DLR (2) 140; namely the character of the employment (project manager in construction with supervisory responsibilities), Mr. Antunes’ length of service (5 months and 11 days), his age (50 years old) and the availability of similar employment, having regard to Mr. Antunes’ experience, training and qualifications.

Justice Brown also considered the impact of Mr. Antunes’ allegation of inducement, which she quickly dismissed, and Limen’s bad faith in terminating Mr. Antunes (of which there were ample facts to support). Of particular note, however is her consideration of general duty of honesty in contractual performance.

In relying on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bhasin v Hrynew, Justice Brown states that parties must be able to rely on a minimum standard of honesty from their contracting partner in relation to performing the contract as a reassurance that if the contract does not work out, they will have a fair opportunity to protect their interests (Bhasin v Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71 at paragraph 86). Justice Brown finds that Limen failed to act honestly in the performance of its contractual obligations when:

  • Mr. Lima misrepresented the value of the company and the company’s shares, and
  • Mr. Lima made up the existence of a Residential Division at Limen, then promised Mr. Antunes shares of this non-existent company.

The above misrepresentations, which Mr. Antunes relied on in accepting the offer of employment, were central to Justice Brown’s determination of an eight month reasonable notice period.

Interestingly, Justice Brown determines that Mr. Antunes is entitled to the 8 months’ reasonable notice under his employment agreement as well as at common law. Although she concludes that the contractual entitlement to eight months reasonable is justified on “the plain wording of the contractual provision, [Limen’s] failure to act in good faith vis-à-vis the employment contract and the misrepresentations on which [Mr. Antunes] relied, and on the adverse inference … drawn against [Limen]”(see paragraph 74) she seems to apply the same Bardal analysis as applicable at common law.

In Limen’s case, Mr. Lima’s embellishments cost them 8 months’ salary in addition to $500,000 for Limen’s failure to issue Limen shares to Mr. Antunes as per the terms of the employment agreement. Justice Brown accepted the uncontroverted evidence that Mr. Lima told Mr. Antunes the shares were worth about $500,000 and concluded that Mr. Antunes “is to be put in a position commensurate with his expectations arising from the contract and from Mr. Lima’s representations to him.”

While it is of no surprise that employer conduct at termination can impact the reasonable notice period, this decision serves as a warning to employers who over-sell the benefits of their offer to potential employment candidates. Where such embellishments are relied on in accepting an offer of employment, they may translate into greater employer liability post-termination.


No feedback yet

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be revealed on this site.
(For my next comment on this site)
(Allow users to contact me through a message form -- Your email will not be revealed!)

Contact Us



  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by SB

    "I just wanted to let you know how happy I am with the outcome and how very grateful I am for the guidance and support that you and your team provided.
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Google user

    "Patrick James is really a great lawyer who is smart and great to deal with. He's been our litigation counsel for over 5 years on several different matters. Patrick recently gave our company great strategic advice that resulted in a big commercial litigation win for our company. He's fierce, tenacious, and really cares about getting the best outcome for his clients."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Google user

    "Patrick is a very good lawyer. He recently successfully defended a lawsuit against my company and has pursued several litigation claims for us in the past. All claims settled input favour. Mr. James is smart and quickly gives you great strategic advice. Patrick has been a real asset to our business."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Sandra L.

    "Andrew Wray and Patrick James recently helped settle a difficult situation for me and my family. The results were exactly what we were hoping for. They are honest, strategic and will provide you with the best advice for you and your financial situation. I highly recommend them to everyone I know."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Mark C.

    "Their team is highly focused and incredibly professional - from our experience it would be difficult not to believe that Pinto Wray James are one of Ontario's leading Firms in Labor and Employment law. The mindful client care and complete understanding of the case eased fears and the stress that comes with any legal dispute. Expect to find high level smartly crafted legal solutions at Pinto Wray James LLP - couldn't recommend more."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Sherry C.

    "Patrick is knowledgeable, strategic, supportive, and patient. His guidance and advice helped me to maintain focus and to keep things in perspective. His experience and keen perception provides him with an edge that allows him to assess the situation, the people involved, and to offer a strategic resolution that works best for all involved. If you ever require legal advice and assistance, I highly recommend him and his team. They will be there 100% for you."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Christian V.

    "Patrick is a fearless advocate for diverse clients. His strategic approach, and his empathy, are what set him apart as a litigator, and champion of the underdog."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by A Google User

    "I have no hesitation recommending Andrew Wray of Pinto Wray James LLP. He provided me with legal advice regarding an employment law issue and his council was practical and honest. Andrew's approach is very much one of blending legal excellence with good common sense. An excellent lawyer!"
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Larry S.

    "Patrick listens to his clients and shows compassion, empathy and professionalism. He cares deeply that the individual that has been wrongfully terminated gets the best judgment available to him. I would not hesitate in recommending him to friends or family."