Ontario Court Reinforces Limits On Summary Judgment For LTD Entitlement Claims: Notice Period Issues Are Fair Game

In employment litigation involving termination and long-term disability (LTD) benefits, Ontario courts continue to draw important distinctions. While questions relating to reasonable notice are often well-suited for summary judgment, core issues of LTD entitlement typically are not.

In Eastwood-Fisher v. Equine Canada et. al., 2026 ONSC 2721, the plaintiff claimed she was wrongfully dismissed and wrongfully denied LTD benefits that she applied for during the reasonable notice period. She alleged she became totally disabled either before her termination or during the notice period.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion. The employer agreed that summary judgment was appropriate on the wrongful dismissal / reasonable notice issue but opposed it on the LTD claim. The insurer defendants opposed summary judgment on disability and entitlement.

Key Outcomes:

• The Court granted summary judgment on the wrongful dismissal claim, finding that the plaintiff was entitled to four (4) months’ reasonable notice (less amounts already paid) plus the value of the benefit package during that period.
• The Court refused summary judgment on the LTD entitlement issues and directed those matters to trial.

Court’s Analysis on Summary Judgment

The Court drew a clear line between the two categories of issues.

Regarding the notice period, the court stated that the length of reasonable notice could be determined summarily by applying the Bardal factors. The Court considered the plaintiff’s relatively short service (15 months), the character of her employment, and the impact of her health on re-employment prospects, ultimately settling on four months.

In following Dwyer v. Advanis Inc., the Court reinforced that health is not a separate, standalone factor that automatically doubles or triples a notice period. However, it can affect the likelihood of securing comparable suitable employment, particularly in situations where the nature of the employment and the plaintiff’s need for accommodation suggest that finding such alternative employment is improbable.

In contrast, the Court held that the LTD issues were not suitable for summary judgment and that these issues required a trial. Multiple credibility and evidentiary issues made a summary decision inappropriate, including:

• Whether the plaintiff was totally disabled before termination while still attending work.
• Whether LTD coverage remained in force during the notice period, the interpretation of communications and benefits documents, and whether representations made by the employer or benefits consultant could bind the insurer or make the employer liable for equivalent benefits.
• The need to assess detailed medical evidence, expert reports, and credibility assessments — particularly where opinions relied on self-reporting

Practical Takeaways for Employers

1. Statutory Minimums are Non-Negotiable: Never cut off benefits before the end of the statutory notice period. Doing so can invalidate even the most well-drafted employment contract.
2. LTD Entitlement Usually Requires a Trial: As Eastwood-Fisher confirms, questions of disability status, coverage during the notice period, policy interpretation, and employer/insurer liability are frequently too complex and credibility-driven for summary judgment.
3. Bifurcation Works: Separating the notice-period claim from the LTD claim can be highly effective. Resolve what can be resolved quickly while preparing for trial (or settlement) on the more contentious benefits issues.
4. Be Careful with Communications: Ambiguous statements about continued LTD coverage during the notice period can create significant triable issues. Clear documentation is essential.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.