Going beyond normal hiring practices can be costly if worker is fired

Hiring senior talent rarely happens by chance. It often involves active outreach, competitive offers, and assurances about growth and opportunity. As Miller v. AlayaCare Inc. 2025 ONSC 1028 reminds us, those same recruitment efforts can later be relied upon to support inducement claims, significantly increasing termination costs when a senior hire is let go. In this case, the Ontario Superior Court examined when recruitment crosses the line into inducement.

The worker was a 62-year-old vice-president of marketing earning more than $250,000 annually. She had 12 years of secure employment with her previous employer when AlayaCare Inc., a direct competitor, recruited her. Despite having served for only seven months at AlayaCare before being terminated, the court ultimately awarded her a 14-month notice period.

The worker did not apply for a role at AlayaCare. Instead, she was actively recruited, including through LinkedIn messages from the company’s co-founder. During the recruitment process:

• AlayaCare positioned the role as an opportunity to help grow the company, suggesting stability and long-term prospects.
• The employer sought detailed information about the worker’s existing compensation in order to make a more attractive offer.
• The parties negotiated key employment terms, including additional vacation.
• Importantly, AlayaCare committed in writing to pay for a lawyer to defend the worker against any legal action her former employer might bring as a result of her departure.

Soon after joining AlayaCare, the worker noticed several “red flags,” including changes to her role and a lack of assignments consistent with the duties outlined in her offer letter and employment contract. Approximately seven months after her start date, AlayaCare terminated the worker without cause, citing a reduction in its workforce.

What is inducement?

Inducement arises when an employer actively persuades an employee to leave secure employment, thereby increasing the employer’s obligations if the new employment ends prematurely.

Courts consider several factors when assessing inducement, including:

• The reasonable expectation of both parties.
• Whether the employee sought out work with the prospective employer.
• Whether there were assurances of long-term employment.
• Whether the employee did due diligence before accepting the position by conducting their own inquiry into the company.
• Whether the discussions between the employer and prospective employee amounted to more than the persuasion or the normal “courtship” that occurs between an employer and a prospective employee.
• The length of time the employee remained in the new position, with the element of inducement tending to lessen with the longevity of the employment.
• The age of the employee at termination and the length of employment with the previous employer.

The court concluded that AlayaCare’s recruitment efforts went beyond normal hiring practices. Rather than responding to a job application, the company actively reached out to worker and emphasized that her experience would help “grow” the business, suggesting a stable and enduring role. AlayaCare also inquired into all aspects of her existing compensation in order to craft a more attractive offer and even offered to indemnify her if her former employer pursued legal action. In addition, the company hired multiple employees to support its expansion, reinforcing the impression of a long-term opportunity. Taken together, these factors supported a finding of inducement and justified a significantly longer notice period.

14 months’ reasonable notice after 7 months of service

The court awarded the worker a 14-month notice period, despite her short tenure. While prior service with a different employer is not automatically “tacked on,” inducement can significantly increase risk, particularly where a senior employee is terminated shortly after being recruited.

For HR professionals, Miller v. AlayaCare Inc. is a clear reminder that how you recruit matters just as much as who you hire. Actively recruiting senior, long-tenured employees, particularly from competitors, can significantly increase termination exposure if the relationship ends, especially in circumstances where there is short tenure. Considering if a specific individual should be approached requires careful messaging during recruitment, clear documentation of what is (and is not) being promised, and thoughtful use of termination provisions can help manage this heightened legal risk and avoid costly surprises down the road. 

Alexa Saleski is an articling student at Turnpenney Milne LLP in Toronto.