Wrongful dismissal claims often hinge on determining the proper amount of reasonable notice or pay in lieu of notice owed to an employee who was terminated without cause. Courts assess multiple factors (commonly known as the Bardal factors in Canadian law) to decide what length of notice is reasonable, including the employee’s age, length of service, character of employment, and availability of similar work. In some cases, an additional consideration known as inducement comes into play. Inducement refers to the situation where an employer actively lured or persuaded an employee to leave secure employment to join the employer’s organization.
Definition of Inducement in Employment Law
In employment law, inducement generally describes an aggressive recruitment scenario in which an employer or recruiter actively persuades a candidate to leave a stable job to join a new company. The employer’s actions must go beyond ordinary recruitment or “courtship” to qualify as inducement. Typical inducement tactics include repeated efforts to convince the person to switch jobs, offering financial incentives, promises of career advancement or job security, or tailoring a role to entice the candidate. In essence, if an employee would not have left their former secure position but for the new employer’s persistent promises or assurances, the employee may be said to have been induced to join the new employer. Courts assessing inducement look at factors such as the reasonable expectations of the parties, who initiated pursuit of the job change, whether any promises of long-term employment were made, whether the recruitment went beyond normal persuasion, and the length of time the employee stayed at the new job. These considerations help distinguish true inducement from a routine job change.
Inducement as a Factor in Reasonable Notice and Damages
When a wrongfully dismissed employee proves they were induced to join their employer, many courts will treat inducement as a factor that increases the reasonable notice period or damages owed. The rationale is to safeguard the employee’s reliance and expectation interests that arose from the hiring negotiations. The Supreme Court of Canada in Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd emphasized that “such inducements are properly included among the considerations which tend to lengthen the amount of notice required,” recognizing the need to protect employees who left secure jobs based on the employer’s representations. However, the Court also cautioned that not all inducements carry equal weight; the significance of inducement will depend on the circumstances of each case and is left to the trial judge’s discretion. In practice, inducement is one of several factors considered (in addition to the basic factors like service length, age, etc.) and typically has the most impact when the new employment was short-lived and the recruitment promises were strong.
Once an employee has worked at the new job for a substantial period (e.g. several years), the initial inducement’s effect diminishes. Generally, after around five years of tenure, courts are less likely to give inducement much weight in extending notice, as the employment relationship by then becomes less about initial persuasion and more about the actual circumstances of the termination. In contrast, if the termination occurs after a short tenure and the recruitment involved lavish promises or aggressive pursuit, courts have been willing to significantly extend the notice period to account for inducement.
It is important to note that inducement typically comes into play only in the absence of an enforceable contract term fixing the notice period. If the employment contract contains a valid termination clause (for example, limiting severance to a specific amount or the statutory minimum), that clause can displace the common-law notice entitlement, making inducement irrelevant in calculating damages. In cases where common law reasonable notice applies, inducement can be argued by the plaintiff to seek an enhanced damages award.
Case Law Illustrating Inducement in Wrongful Dismissal
Canadian courts have a long history of considering inducement in wrongful dismissal damages. The foundational Ontario case Bardal v Globe & Mail Ltd established the core factors for reasonable notice, and later cases recognized inducement as an additional consideration beyond the basic Bardal factors. In Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd, the Supreme Court of Canada explicitly acknowledged the inducement factor, as noted above, underscoring that luring an employee from secure employment “tend[s] to lengthen” the notice period required.
Subsequent decisions have illustrated how inducement can boost notice awards. For example, in Dias v Paragon Gaming EC Co (2010 ABPC 390), an Alberta court doubled the notice period because the employer had actively recruited the employee from a secure job. The employee in Dias had only about 1.5 years of service, which might ordinarily merit roughly 2 months’ notice for such a short tenure; however, due to inducement, the court awarded 4 months’ notice. In another case, Rodgers v CEVA (2014 ONSC 6583), an Ontario court awarded 14 months’ notice to an employee with just under 3 years of service. The employee had been vigorously wooed for the position – including seven interviews, an executive meeting abroad, and a $40,000 signing bonus to entice him to leave his former job – circumstances that convinced the court to grant a much longer notice period than service alone would justify.
Even where inducement is proven, the outcome is fact-specific. In Shelp v GoSecure Inc (2025 ONSC 49) an employee who served only 10 months argued he was induced to leave a stable job for a new role, but the court found no inducement on those facts. The evidence showed the employee himself had initiated interest in the opportunity without extraordinary pressure from the employer, so his claim for extended notice was denied. This contrast illustrates that courts require clear proof of the employer’s aggressive recruiting and the employee’s reliance on it. Where such proof exists (especially if the promises of secure or long-term employment were explicit), Canadian courts have not hesitated to award significantly higher damages in wrongful dismissal cases to account for inducement.
One striking illustration in Canadian precedent is Hooker v Audio Magnetics Corp of Canada Ltd (, [1984] OJ No 2588) where an employee who had only one year of service was nevertheless awarded 14 months’ notice because he had been lured from a secure job. More recently, in Younesi v Kaz Minerals Projects B.V (2021 BCSC 614) an engineer left a comfortable position (with high pay and benefits) after being “headhunted” by a new employer that dangled an “irresistible” offer. When he was terminated just two months into the new job, the Ontario court found he had indeed been induced to join under an implied promise of job security. The court extended his notice entitlement by an additional two months beyond what a short two-month tenure would normally merit. These cases reinforce that in Canada, inducement can substantially increase wrongful dismissal damages, particularly for employees dismissed soon after being coaxed away from previous employment.
Inducement is meant to protect the reliance interests of employees – essentially, to avoid leaving someone worse off for having trusted an employer’s recruitment pitch. As the Supreme Court noted in Wallace, the law “safeguard[s] the employee’s reliance and expectation interests in inducement situations” by recognizing it in the notice calculus. The strength of the inducement and the timing of the termination are critical. Strong promises of job security or big incentives, followed by a quick termination, will likely lead a court to significantly increase the notice period whereas a mild nudge to join followed by years of employment will carry little weight; generally the stronger the promises made, the greater the benefits, and the shorter the duration of employment in the new position, the more a court will extend notice for inducement.
Conclusion
Inducement in the employment context serves as a cautionary principle for employers and a protective shield for employees. Legally, it is defined by the employer’s aggressive pursuit and convincing promises that cause an individual to depart secure employment. When a wrongfully dismissed employee can establish inducement, it directly affects damage calculations: Canadian courts may lengthen the reasonable notice period (sometimes dramatically). Numerous cases illustrate that judges are willing to hold employers accountable for promises made during recruitment – the underlying notion is consistent: employees should not bear the full loss for trusting an employer’s inducements.
In summary, inducement can significantly influence wrongful dismissal outcomes by elevating damages, thereby promoting fairness when an employer’s enticing promises turn out to be empty.
*Always seek legal advice. The above is for information purposes only.
Stephen Dugandzic received his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Alberta in 2013 and is Calgary-based. He previously practised with Bennett Jones LLP and Taylor Janis LLP before founding YYC Employment Law Group in 2018.