By: Stephanie McDonald and Baljinder (Bal) Singh Tiwana
The Ozorio case (Ozorio v. Canadian Hearing Society, 2016 ONSC 5440) is a big win for older employees who lose their jobs after many years of service. Courts now make it clear: age matters when it comes to severance.
Older workers often face real challenges in finding new jobs. Employers may see them as less adaptable. Training opportunities may have been fewer in recent years. And today’s job market often favours younger, lower-cost talent. For these reasons, age plays a major role in how long it can reasonably take to find new work.
This case shows that courts understand these barriers and will reflect them in compensation. Longer notice periods are often needed to give older employees a fair chance to transition.
If you are an older employee facing termination, do not sign the first package an employer offers. Too often, people feel pressured to accept less than they deserve. Legal advice can make the difference, and you may be entitled to much more than what’s put in front of you.
Facts of the Case
Stephanie Ozorio worked at the Canadian Hearing Society for about 30 years. For the last 10 years, she held a senior role as Regional Director.
In November 2015, when she was 61 years old, the Society let her go without cause. The reason given was “company restructuring.”
Ms. Ozorio earned about $103,000 a year. Her employer first offered her a severance package worth $93,000. She turned it down. They later offered $97,000. She rejected that too.
She decided to sue for wrongful dismissal.
The judge ruled that she was entitled to 24 months’ pay in lieu of reasonable notice. This reflected her long service, senior role, and age.
The court noted she applied widely for new jobs but could not find work. It found her age and market conditions made it very difficult to secure comparable employment.
In reaching its decision, the court applied the Bardal factors including age, length of service, job responsibilities, and adaptability.
The judge highlighted that older, long-term employees face unique barriers in the job market. Courts have recognised this before. For example:
- In McKinney v. University of Guelph, the court held that older, long-serving employees usually deserve longer notice periods.
- In Drysdale v. Panasonic Canada Ltd., the court noted that employers may see long-term employees as “set in their ways,” which can hurt re-employment chances.
- In Leeming v. IBM Canada Ltd., the court found that older workers often struggle to compete with younger, cheaper, and more recently trained candidates.
Also, ageism is a thing.
Finally, the court took into account that the employer did not offer any re-employment support, such as a reference letter or career transition services. This made Ms. Ozorio’s job search even harder.
How Age Influences the Period of Notice
The court put strong focus on Ms. Ozorio’s age and her 30 years of service when it set the 24-month notice period. It said directly: age is an impediment.
Older employees, especially those with long service, often face real disadvantages in today’s job market. Employers may assume they are less adaptable or less current with training. These perceptions make it much harder to land a similar role.
That’s why courts see age as a key factor. A longer notice period gives older workers more time and financial support to make a fair transition.
Implications for Older Employees
The Ozorio case makes one thing clear: older employees with long service deserve longer notice periods when they are let go. Courts now openly recognise the challenges older workers face in finding comparable jobs after termination.
This decision tells employers they must factor age and service into severance offers. If they don’t, and if they make low or inconsistent offers, the courts may step in. The message is simple: treat older, long-serving employees fairly, or risk a costly judgment.
If you are facing a similar situation and are looking for compassionate and capable legal advice, book a consultation with Workplace Sage Legal today.
DISCLAIMER: This article/blog is provided for educational/informational purposes only. The views expressed are solely those of the author(s) and should not be attributed to any other party not listed as the author(s).
While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of the content provided, it does not constitute legal advice. Prior to relying on any aspect of this article, you should consult with a suitably qualified legal professional promptly in your relevant jurisdiction, to obtain advice tailored to your individual circumstances
Nothing in this article should be interpreted as forming a solicitor-client relationship or construed as a solicitation for legal services.
