Skip to main content
All toolsFree preliminary assessment

Understand the issues before opening a file.

Explore a fictional Ontario example or assess a short, redacted fact pattern. No email is required to see the result.

Keep confidential information out

Do not enter names, client identifiers, privileged communications, medical records, or document text. Use fictional or redacted facts only.

Fictional Ontario employment example

Eight-year employee offered eight weeks of pay

A 52-year-old sales manager worked for the same employer for eight years. The employer terminated the employee without cause and offered eight weeks of pay. A written employment agreement may contain a termination clause, but it has not been reviewed.

Example result

What the available facts suggest

Limited confidence

The eight-week offer may satisfy or exceed minimum statutory requirements, but the available facts are not enough to determine whether it satisfies the employee’s contractual or common-law entitlement. The termination clause and compensation structure are likely to be central.

Potential legal issues

  • Whether the written termination clause is enforceable
  • Minimum termination and possible severance entitlements under Ontario legislation
  • Whether common-law reasonable notice applies
  • Whether bonuses, commissions, and benefits continue through the notice period

Information still needed

  • The exact termination-clause wording and when the agreement was signed
  • The employee’s complete compensation structure
  • Whether the employer has an Ontario payroll of at least $2.5 million
  • The employee’s duties, availability of comparable work, and mitigation efforts
  • Any facts suggesting discrimination, reprisal, or bad-faith conduct

Authorities to review

3 sources

  1. Employment Standards Act, 2000

    SO 2000, c 41

    Sets minimum Ontario termination and severance entitlements.

    Review original source

  2. Machtinger v HOJ Industries Ltd

    [1992] 1 SCR 986

    Explains the consequences of an employment termination clause that does not comply with minimum standards.

    Review original source

  3. Waksdale v Swegon North America Inc

    2020 ONCA 391

    Addresses how termination provisions are read together when assessing enforceability.

    Review original source

Limits of this assessment

  • This is a fictional educational example, not legal advice.
  • The employment agreement and underlying evidence have not been reviewed.
  • Reasonable notice is fact-specific. No reliable notice period or damages estimate can be given from these facts alone.

Try a redacted fact pattern

Use the same structure to identify issues, missing information, authorities, and uncertainty without creating an account.

No email requiredFictional or redacted facts onlyOriginal sources shown

How the AI case assessment works

Curia's preliminary case assessment compares a short fictional or redacted fact pattern with Canadian legal sources. It identifies potential issues, information that may still be needed, relevant authorities, and the limits of the available record.

The public assessment currently supports Ontario matters. It is designed for early issue-spotting, before confidential client information or complete documents are added to a secure matter workspace.

Source links are shown when the research pipeline returns them. Always open the original legislation or decision and confirm that it supports the proposition before relying on it in practice.

Anonymous results expire after 48 hours. Creating a free Curia account is optional and is only required if you want to save the assessment into a matter or continue into deeper research.