Insurer rejected LTD claim, but employer could still be liable for benefits
An Ontario judge has ruled that a former Equestrian Canada director dismissed after roughly 15 months on the job was entitled to four months' reasonable notice, not the four weeks her employer ultimately provided, in a decision that leaves open whether the employer could be on the hook for long-term disability benefits the insurer has refused to pay.
In Eastwood-Fisher v. Equine Canada et al., released May 7, 2026, Regional Senior Justice C. MacLeod of the Superior Court of Justice granted partial summary judgment, awarding the plaintiff salary and the value of her benefits package for the four-month notice period, less amounts already paid. The plaintiff alleges she became totally disabled either before her February 8, 2019, termination or during the notice period, an issue the court sent to trial.
When a short tenure meets a known health history
Jennifer Eastwood-Fisher was hired in November 2017 on a one-year contract, which became indeterminate around November 2018. By that time, she held the position of Director of Technical Development, earning $81,600 plus benefits, including LTD coverage. She had previously been injured in a December 2016 motor vehicle accident, with alleged ongoing impacts including traumatic brain injury, mild neurocognitive disorder, chronic pain syndrome, persistent depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance and an inability to regulate her emotions.
The plaintiff alleges she had become overwhelmed managing her disabilities at work, had ceased to perform her job effectively before receiving notice, and had contemplated medical leave — with the employer aware of this. The employer says the termination resulted from financial constraints and elimination of the position, and does not allege cause.
She was initially given two weeks' notice with benefits continuation, later topped up by an additional two weeks of pay in lieu and extension of benefits, though there is some evidence the extension did not include LTD.
The notice gap that opened the door
The plaintiff sought six months' notice; the employer argued for no more than three. Justice MacLeod settled on four months, less amounts already paid, and confirmed she is entitled to the value of the benefit package for that same period.
He declined to treat health as a standalone factor in the notice analysis but accepted it could influence the availability of similar employment and the duty to mitigate. He noted the employer was aware of the plaintiff's medical vulnerability.
As he wrote: "Poor health alone would not justify doubling or tripling the length of notice required for a relatively short term of employment. While there is no formulaic upper limit on notice, the notice period must still be reasonable."
The LTD question still hanging over the employer
The insurer denied the LTD claim, taking the position that coverage ceased on February 9, 2019, and no application was made within the coverage period. The plaintiff alleges she was told she remained covered if she submitted her claim in time, and made her claim within one month of termination. She contends that if the employer's contract with the insurer did not in fact extend benefits during the notice period, the employer would be liable to pay the LTD benefits.
Justice MacLeod refused summary judgment on the LTD claim, finding that the dispute turned on credibility and conflicting evidence not suited to a paper record. He described the matter as a "triangular dispute" involving the employer, the insurer and the employee, and concluded: "The need to assess credibility or untangle complex competing evidence is not always a bar to summary judgment but frequently it is. In my view the evidence does not permit me to make the necessary findings with confidence."
Whether the plaintiff was and remains totally disabled within the meaning of the policy, whether the insurer was obligated to provide benefits, and, failing that, whether the employer is obligated to provide the equivalent benefits, are all headed to trial.
See Eastwood-Fisher v. Equine Canada et al., 2026 ONSC 2721.
