Post-Termination Bonus Entitlement

dollar signBonus entitlement is always a juicy topic. In September the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released a decision that shed some light on the issue of how entitlement to a bonus will be treated where an employer has no formal bonus policy, but a consistent past practice.

In Fulmer v. Nordstrong Equipment Limited, a wrongful dismissal case, the former employee (“Fulmer”) had received a discretionary bonus in each of his six years with the employer.  The employer attempted to argue that their “unofficial” bonus policy was that terminated employees would not be provided with any bonus pro rata or otherwise. In this case there was no employment contract, and the termination letter was silent on both entitlement to a bonus and any performance issues.

The employer argued post-termination that they discovered issues related to Fulmer’s performance, which would have disentitled him to his 2016 bonus, a period during which Fulmer was still actively at work. The judge dismissed this argument, commenting that the employer was simply seeking reasons for which to disentitle the plaintiff from his bonus.

Bonus Entitlement

The judge looked at the employer’s 2016 profitability and awarded Fulmer a $20,000.00 bonus for 2016. While Fulmer argued that he was also entitled to his 2017 bonus during the ten month notice period falling in 2017, the judge determined that because bonuses were calculated at the end of the year, and based on the employee’s positive contributions to the company throughout that year, it was not reasonable to expect a bonus for 2017. Justice Diamon made the following comments, emphasising the plaintiff’s duty to mitigate during the notice period: “I do not find it to be within the reasonable expectation of the plaintiff (charged with a duty to mitigate his losses) to be able to earn a bonus for the 2017 calendar year while he searched for alternative, comparable employment.”

Take Aways

Courts will look to what is fair and reasonable in determining entitlement to bonuses. Simply because a bonus is “discretionary” does not mean that it can be awarded in an unfair or arbitrary way. Courts will look for a bonus process, even in the absence of an official policy.

Where an employer attempts to justify an “unofficial policy” in a way that is not fair, a negative inference is likely to be made as against the employer.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of the following:

  1. 1. Having a bonus policy that is in writing and including details regarding how bonuses will be calculated and awarded;
    2. Following a formal bonus procedure and doing so uniformly;
    3. Making employees aware of their bonus entitlements and eligibility; and
    4. Addressing the question of bonuses in the employment agreement, including treatment of the bonus on termination.

As in this case, courts will look to past practice, and what is fair and reasonable, to determine the quantum of a bonus where there is no official policy.

Share the Post:

Related Posts

Blue alarm clock representing timing and Ontario employment termination clauses after Baker

“At Any Time” Gets Its Time: Is There Any Certainty for Ontario Employers After Baker? 

Ontario employers finally have more guidance on employment termination clauses. In Baker v Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc.; Li v Wayfair Canada ULC, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld clauses using “at any time” and “for any reason.”

But Baker doesn’t give every employment contract a free pass. We unpack what the decision means for employers reviewing termination language today.

Read More »
Hands typing on a keyboard in front of illuminated computer screens, representing virtual workplace communication and online workplace misconduct.

Virtual Harassment: When Workplace Misconduct Happens Online 

Virtual harassment is becoming a growing workplace issue as employee interactions increasingly happen through digital platforms. From group chats and messaging apps to social media activity, online conduct can create real workplace consequences. Learn why employers should update workplace policies, extend conduct expectations beyond the office, and take a proactive approach to investigating and addressing virtual misconduct.

Read More »
December 31, 2026 AODA filing deadline for Ontario employers, displayed beside champagne glasses and gold New Year decorations

The Accessibility Deadline Many Ontario Businesses Don’t Know About: December 31, 2026

Ontario businesses and non-profits with 20 or more employees must file an AODA accessibility compliance report by December 31, 2026. Before certifying compliance, employers should confirm their headcount, complete required training, review accessibility policies and plans, address gaps, and file early. SpringLaw explains the deadline, key requirements, and practical steps Ontario employers should take now, before they file.

Read More »

Contact Us

Thank You For Your Interest. Kindly Complete The Form Below. Our Client Services team will be in touch with further information about our fees and intake process.
[grow-contact-form]