Carl Carlson is a safety operations supervisor in Sector 7G of the Nuclear Power Plant in Springfield, British Columbia. Carl was promoted into this role about a year ago.

Homer Simpson is a safety inspector in Sector 7G of the Nuclear Power Plant. He is a mediocre employee at best and doesn't have a post-secondary degree or any other formal education or training. He simply showed up when the Nuclear Power Plant opened, and has worked there since at least 1989 (33 years). There are no comparable workplaces in British Columbia and the skills he's developed in the past 33 years are not very transferrable. If something were to happen to Homer's employment at the Nuclear Power Plant, it would likely take a long time for him to find alternative work. Even still, it's unlikely that he would find work that paid remotely as well as his current job.

The Nuclear Power Plant is a non-unionized workplace. Homer's laziness and mediocrity have gotten out of hand recently, and Carl is looking into his options for terminating Homer. Carl takes a look at Homer's recent performance reviews and sees that they are all relatively positive. There have been no disciplinary actions taken against Homer, and the only negative note on his file is that he fell asleep at work once in 1996. Carl then tries to look to Homer's employment agreement, and as Hamlet once said, "there's the rub". As far as Carl can tell, there is no formal employment agreement between the Nuclear Power Plan and Homer.

Question 1 - Do you think Carl should terminate Homerwith cause? Why or why not?

Question 2 - If Carl decides to terminate Homerwithout cause, how much notice, or pay in lieu of notice, do you think Homer would be entitled to? A lot? A little? Limited to requirements under the Employment Standards Act, or would common law "reasonable notice" be applicable here? Why?

Question 3 - Would your answer to Question 2 be different if there was an employment agreement that said if Homer were terminated without cause, that the Nuclear Power Plant would pay him "the minimum amount required under applicable employment standards legislation"?