Carroll v. Oracle Canada ULC, 2025 ONSC 4889
Background
In Carroll v. Oracle Canada ULC, 2025 ONSC 4889, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff damages for wrongful dismissal. Significantly, the court awarded the plaintiff punitive damages in an amount equal to the amount of the plaintiff’s withheld commissions.
The Plaintiff’s Employment & Reasonable Notice Period
The plaintiff, Steve Carroll, began working for Oracle Canada ULC (Oracle), in November 2019 as a Global Strategic Client Executive. The plaintiff earned a base salary of $180,000 and earned significant commissions. At the time of his termination, he was 61 years old and had been employed by Oracle for three years and seven months.
In determining the amount of reasonable notice of the plaintiff, the court noted the plaintiff’s length of service “tends towards a disproportionately longer notice period” (at para 13). With respect to the plaintiff’s age, the court noted that his age in combination with his high income tended towards a longer notice period. Considering the character of the plaintiff’s employment, the court rejected Oracle’s argument that the plaintiff’s salesperson skills were easily transferable to other industries. The court stated that while this may be the case, it is a fact specific analysis and the plaintiff’s specialization in the financial service industry (and his income) weighed in favour of a longer notice period.
The court also held that the plaintiff’s notice period was lengthened by the fact that Oracle did not provide him with a reference letter. Oracle had provided the plaintiff with a general letter of employment listing how long he was an employee, his role and his salary. Here the court held (at para 32):
A letter of this sort is damning in an employee’s search for a job hunt. It is the sort of letter that an employer would write for a mediocre or problematic employee in respect of whom an employer did not want to say anything proactively negative. The letter would leave the reader with the impression that Mr. Carroll was at best a mediocre employee and not one who “earned above target for overachievement” as Oracle admits he did.
In consideration of the above, the court held that the plaintiff’s notice period was 12 months. Although he had found another position eight months after his termination, the court found that it “was not yet fully comparable” and it was appropriate to include a “ramp-up period” for the first few months at his new position to reach his previous level of income at Oracle. Further, because the plaintiff’s position was heavily commission-based, the court applied a three-year average to calculate the monetary amount of 12 months’ notice.
Punitive Damages
The plaintiff claimed punitive damages because his commission was only remitted to him eight months after his termination. Oracle had defended this decision by submitting that they did not have the necessary information to make the commission payments to the plaintiff and that it was not required to pay the plaintiff his commission per his employment agreement. The court rejected both arguments and found that Oracles’ decision not to pay the plaintiff his commission was “to try to force a financially vulnerable employee into a less favourable settlement position” (at para 64).
The court awarded the plaintiff $57,740.55 in punitive damages. This amount was equal to the amount of the plaintiff’s improperly withheld commissions. The court stated that the employer’s breach of their duty of good faith in contractual performance amounted an independent actionable wrong. The court held that “a punitive award equal to approximately 100% of the amount at issue provides an adequate level of denunciation and disincentive to deter others from engaging in such conduct in the future” (at para 74). Without precluding the possibility of awarding punitive damages equal to the monetary value of the employee’s notice at common law, the court noted that this was a matter more appropriately addressed by costs given the plaintiff being “less vulnerable” as a high-income earner (at para 76).
Conclusion
Carroll v. Oracle Canada ULC confirms the established trend of the courts awarding lengthier notice periods to older and more senior employees even if the years of service are not lengthy. This decision also underscores the risks an employer may face by withholding contractually owed amounts to an employee and not providing a principled reason for doing so. Despite the exceptionality of punitive damages in wrongful dismissal cases, Carroll v. Oracle Canada ULC illustrates that an employer’s liability for a punitive damages award may increase where any award can be tied to a quantifiable amount or metric such as withheld commissions or earnings.