Court refused to rewrite the clause, calling the fix far too extensive
A British Columbia aerospace company that tried to send a dismissed senior manager out the door with three weeks' pay has been ordered to pay him nine months instead, after the BC Supreme Court ruled on May 1, 2026, that its termination clause was so badly drafted it was legally meaningless.
In Kular v. Avcorp Industries Inc. (LateCoere Aerostructures Canada), Justice Branch found the clause was "void for uncertainty," noting that "neither the Court nor the parties could make sense of its language or the parties' intentions by looking at the words themselves or the surrounding circumstances." The decision wiped out the contractual cap the employer was relying on and reset Harman Kular's entitlement to common law reasonable notice.
The clause that collapsed
Kular, a 56-year-old supply chain leader, was dismissed without cause on December 17, 2024, after just under three years with Avcorp. The defendant only provided the plaintiff with three weeks' pay in lieu of notice – the basic requirement under s. 63 of the BC Employment Standards Act.
The employer pointed to clause 9.2 of the Second Agreement to cap its exposure. The court found the clause unintelligible, including the line that the additional severance "shall be equal to one the obligations outlined" in the ESA.
A second problem compounded it. "Clause 9.2.4 references a 'Section 7.2' that does not even exist in the ESA. The defendant suggested that it was perhaps intended to refer to clause 9.2 of the Second Agreement, but that is far from clear."
A release requirement that backfired
The contract also tied the employee's statutory minimum entitlements to signing a release. The court flagged this as fatal.
"Clause 9.2.4 includes an attempt to make the plaintiff's entitlement to the notice under the ESA conditional on the signing of a release. Such a requirement exceeds what the ESA requires from an employee to secure such compensation."
The employer asked the court to either rewrite the clause, fall back on the severability provision, or revert to the First Agreement signed in 2021. Justice Branch rejected each option, finding it would require "completely rewriting the termination clause rather than simply performing less significant 'blue pencil' adjustments."
What survived, and what it cost
Not every clause failed. The bonus provision held, with the court finding clause 5.4.1 "contractually excludes any entitlement to a bonus over the notice period." Aggravated and punitive damages were also denied.
But the damage was done on the main clause. Kular was awarded nine months of base pay ($139,050), pension contributions ($6,952.50), and medical expenses ($2,254.31). The court noted that if the three weeks' pay initially offered at the time of dismissal had already been paid, the base pay award should be reduced by that amount.
"There is no question that parties may displace the presumption of reasonable notice through a provision in a contract of employment that clearly specifies 'some other period of notice'. There is also no question that the intention of the parties to do so must be expressed clearly and unambiguously."
See Kular v. Avcorp Industries Inc. (LateCoere Aerostructures Canada), 2026 BCSC 794.
