Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Determination of the appropriate common law reasonable notice period for a 15-month employee terminated without cause from a mid-level managerial role.
• Dispute over whether the plaintiff’s group long-term disability (LTD) coverage extended beyond the formal end of employment, including during the common law notice period.
• Contested evidence on when the plaintiff became “totally disabled” and whether her disability arose before termination or within the reasonable notice period.
• Interpretation issues concerning the LTD policy’s “own occupation” and “any occupation” disability definitions and how they interact with the timing of coverage cessation.
• Conflicting accounts and documents regarding representations made about continued LTD coverage and the timing and sufficiency of the LTD claim submission.
• Procedural question of whether entitlement to LTD benefits, and related credibility disputes, can properly be determined on a summary judgment motion.

Factual background
The plaintiff, Jennifer Eastwood-Fisher, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in December 2016, after which she reported ongoing health problems, including traumatic brain injury, mild neurocognitive disorder, chronic pain, depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance and difficulty regulating her emotions. She nonetheless returned to the workforce, working first at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, then briefly at another hospital, and ultimately securing employment with Equine Canada (carrying on business as Equestrian Canada).
In November 2017, she began a one-year fixed-term contract with Equine Canada. Around November 2018, this fixed-term arrangement effectively converted into an indefinite employment relationship. At the time of her dismissal, she occupied the role of Director of Technical Development, earning $81,600 per year plus a benefits package that included long-term disability insurance under a group plan. She remained in this role until February 8, 2019, when her employment was terminated without cause.
Equine Canada maintained that the termination was driven by financial constraints and business decisions that led to the elimination of the plaintiff’s position. The plaintiff, however, asserted that she had been struggling at work due to the lingering effects of her accident-related impairments and had been about to commence long-term disability leave when she was dismissed. She said she had become overwhelmed by the effort to manage her disabilities in the workplace and was no longer able to perform her job effectively before receiving notice of termination.

Termination, notice and benefits
Upon termination, the plaintiff understood that she was given two weeks’ working notice, during which her benefits would continue. Equine Canada subsequently provided an additional two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice and an extension of benefits, although there was some ambiguity about whether that extension actually included LTD coverage. The plaintiff believed that her LTD coverage continued until March 8, 2019 and sent an email to confirm this understanding.
Between March 6 and March 8, 2019, the defendants became formally aware that the plaintiff was applying for long-term disability benefits. She had a medical report stating she was off work for medical reasons as of February 8, 2019. The group LTD insurer ultimately denied her claim. The insurer and benefits consultant (GroupHealth and SSQ) took the position that LTD coverage ceased the day after her employment ended (February 9, 2019), and that no valid application was made while coverage was still in force.

LTD policy terms and coverage issues
The LTD plan contained what the court described as a standard two-stage disability definition. For the first two years, the test is whether the claimant is disabled from performing her “own occupation.” After that, benefits continue only if the claimant is disabled from engaging in “any occupation” for which she is reasonably suited by education, training or experience.
Two central coverage questions arose. First, the court had to consider whether the plaintiff was covered by the LTD plan at the time she purportedly became disabled. This turned on when her coverage ended: on the last day worked, the day after termination, at the end of the statutory notice period, at the end of the common law notice period, or some other point. Second, even if her claim were considered timely, she would still need to prove that she was “totally disabled” within the meaning of the policy, initially under the “own occupation” test and, if benefits extended, under the “any occupation” test.
The plaintiff alleged that she became totally disabled either before termination or within the period of statutory or common law reasonable notice, and that LTD benefits should have been available during that notice period. The insurer disputed that she met the policy definition of disability and also denied that coverage was in effect at the time the claim was made.

Employer liability for LTD coverage during notice
In addition to suing the insurer and benefit providers, the plaintiff advanced claims against Equine Canada as her former employer. She argued that she was entitled to more than two weeks’ notice and that her benefits, including LTD, should have continued throughout the entire reasonable notice period. If the employer’s contract with the insurer did not actually secure LTD coverage for that full notice period, she contended that Equine Canada would itself be liable to pay the equivalent of any LTD benefits she should have received.
This raised the related question of whether, if LTD coverage technically ended at termination, any communications from the employer or benefits consultant amounted to binding representations that coverage continued, either estopping the insurer from denying coverage or rendering the employer liable to provide equivalent protection. There was evidence of email exchanges where the plaintiff said she was told she remained covered for LTD so long as she submitted her claim within a certain timeframe, but the precise wording, context, and accuracy of those communications were contested.

Summary judgment framework and approach
The proceedings before the Ontario Superior Court arose by way of a motion for summary judgment brought by the plaintiff. She sought judgment on both the wrongful dismissal claim and her entitlement to LTD benefits (or equivalent relief from the employer). Equine Canada agreed that the wrongful dismissal and the reasonable notice period could be resolved on summary judgment. However, the insurer defendants opposed summary judgment on the LTD issues, arguing that those questions required credibility assessments and evidentiary weighing not suitable for resolution on a paper record.
The court distinguished between two aspects of the Rule 20 summary judgment regime. Where the parties agree to proceed by summary judgment, as with the notice period, the court may grant judgment if satisfied it is appropriate to do so. Where a party resists summary judgment, as with the LTD claim, the court must be satisfied there is no genuine issue requiring a trial. The judge noted that while summary judgment can be used in some cases involving conflicting evidence and credibility, it is not appropriate where the record does not permit reliable findings of fact.

Determination of the reasonable notice period
The court held that the length of reasonable notice could efficiently be decided on summary judgment. The plaintiff had worked for Equine Canada for approximately 15 months, including her original 12-month term contract, which the court treated as part of her continuous service because it transitioned into an indefinite employment relationship. The employer did not dispute that the plaintiff’s indefinite employment was terminable only for cause or with reasonable notice, and there was no allegation of just cause. Both sides accepted that the Employment Standards Act minimum of two weeks did not define the common law entitlement and that the Bardal factors governed the analysis.
The parties disagreed on how the plaintiff’s health and disability should influence the notice period. The plaintiff asked for six months’ notice, relying partly on the difficulty she would face in obtaining similar employment given her medical condition. The employer argued for a notice period of no more than three months, subject to credit for amounts already paid. The court agreed with prior jurisprudence that health should not be treated as a stand-alone additional Bardal factor. However, it recognized that an employee’s health can affect the availability of comparable work and the duty to mitigate, especially where accommodation needs significantly limit the range of suitable employment.
Balancing the length of service, the nature of the role, the employer’s conduct, and the plaintiff’s overall circumstances, the court concluded that a reasonable notice period of four months was appropriate. It noted that poor health alone would not justify doubling or tripling the notice period for a relatively short-service employee and that, even where alternative employment is scarce, the notice period must remain “reasonable” rather than open-ended.

Why the LTD issues were not resolved summarily
By contrast, the court declined to grant summary judgment on the LTD issues, identifying multiple intertwined factual and legal disputes that could not fairly be resolved on the record before it. There were conflicting accounts about when the plaintiff became totally disabled; what, precisely, was communicated by the employer, insurer, and benefits consultant about the continuation of coverage; and how to interpret the communications and policy documents in light of who knew what and when.
In addition, the LTD policy was a contract between the employer and the insurer, but the benefits were intended for employees. This created a triangular dispute: the insurer’s direct obligations under the plan to eligible employees, the employer’s obligation to provide the promised coverage, and the role of the benefits consultant advising both. The court noted that neither the plaintiff nor the employer was a large, sophisticated party, and both relied heavily on the consultant’s advice.
Beyond coverage, there were also questions about the plaintiff’s actual disability status and the admissibility and weight of medical and expert evidence. Some of that expert evidence relied in part on self-reported symptoms, making credibility assessments critical. The judge observed that while such issues can sometimes be decided on a motion, they added another layer of complexity and made it more difficult to be confident in making final determinations without oral evidence and cross-examination.

Outcome and next steps
In the result, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff on the wrongful dismissal claim, declaring that she was entitled to four months’ reasonable notice. She was therefore entitled to salary and the value of her benefits package for that four-month period, with a deduction for any amounts she had already received. The decision did not quantify this award in dollars, leaving the precise monetary figure to be calculated based on her salary, benefits value, and prior payments.
However, the court refused to grant summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim for LTD benefits (or equivalent relief against the employer). The issues of whether she was and remains totally disabled under the policy wording, whether the insurer was obligated to provide benefits, and, if not, whether the employer is liable to provide equivalent benefits were all remitted to be determined at trial or through negotiated resolution. The parties were encouraged to streamline the eventual trial by relying on affidavit material where possible and making factual admissions. The judge also left the question of costs to further submissions if necessary. As a result, the plaintiff can be considered successful on the wrongful dismissal aspect of the motion, while the defendants successfully resisted summary judgment on the LTD entitlement, and the total amount of monetary award and costs cannot be determined from this decision alone.