Bardal v Globe & Mail is one of Canada’s most important employment law precedents. Although it is an Ontario court decision, its approach has been approved by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Facts
After serving as the assistant advertising manager of the Winnipeg Tribune, Mr. Bardal became the manager of the Canadian Street Car Advertising Co.
While working there, in October, 1942, the Globe Printing Co. Ltd. asked him to become its assistant advertising manager.
He told them that it was important, at his age, that his employment be permanent.
Mr. Bardal accepted the job, at $6,500/ year (about $120,000 in today’s dollars).
In 1955, the Globe & Mail Ltd. bought the Globe Printing Co.’s assets. The employees, including Mr. Bardal, were transferred to the purchaser without new employment terms.
On April 23, 1959, Mr. Bardal was called to Mr. Dalgleish’s office, the president. Mr. Dalgleish requested his resignation.
If he resigned, he would receive six months’ salary and one month to seek new employment.
The Globe was losing money. Mr. Dalgleish wanted someone who would produce better results.
Mr. Bardal told Mr. Dalgleish that he could not accept accusations of incompetency.
He refused to resign.
He was immediately fired.
Before his dismissal, he was paid $17,750/year (about $187,000/year today). He also received profit sharing income. In 1956 and 1957 this was about $6,500 ($157,000 today) and in 1958 it was $3,100 ($33,000 today).
Mr. Bardal was entitled to either a lump sum pension plan payment (about $5,000) or a pension of about $1,350 per year, starting in February, 1970. He chose the latter.
By July 1, 1959 he found work with an advertising agency at a salary of $15,000 (about $158,000 today)/ year.
Mr. Bardal sued for wrongful dismissal.
The Globe alleged that he quit. In the alternative, it argued that he did not produce the results it expected.
Court’s decision
Chief Justice McRuer of the Ontario Supreme Court High Court of Justice observed that Mr. Bardal’s employment did not have an end date.
At that time, some perceived that there was a general cap on reasonable notice of about six months. At page 144-145, the Court dispelled the suggestion of a cap. This is the context in which the Court, at page 145, makes the statement for which this case is so well known:
There can be no catalogue laid down as to what is reasonable notice in particular classes of cases. The reasonableness of the notice must be decided with reference to each particular case, having regard to the ‘character of the employment, the length of service of the servant, the age of the servant and the availability of similar employment, having regard to the experience, training and qualifications of the servant [emphasis added]
Bardal, p. 145
These have become known as the “Bardal factors.” They are:
- The character of the employment
- The employee’s length of service
- The employee’s age and
- The availability of similar employment, having regard to the employee’s experience, training and qualifications
Applying this to Mr. Bardal’s situation, the Court said:
we have a servant who, through a lifetime of training, was qualified to manage the advertising department of a large metropolitan newspaper. With the exception of a short period of employment as manager of a street car advertising agency, his whole training has been in the advertising department of two large daily newspapers. There are few comparable offices available in Canada and the plaintiff has… taken employment with an advertising agency… of a different character.
It concluded that he was entitled to one year’s notice.
Had Mr. Bardal been given proper notice he would have had another year of pensionable service. And a higher pension.
The Court could not assess his pension loss, as the evidence was insufficient. But it did not deny Mr. Bardal his pension losses. Rather, it directed a reference to a Master to determine those damages.
Limitations
The “Bardal factors” are not exhaustive. Other factors may be considered when determining reasonable notice of dismissal.
How each factor is weighed depends on the circumstances. In some cases, these factors may not apply at all.
Importance
This decision is known for its articulation of the “Bardal factors.”
It emphasizes that reasonable notice is determined by the dismissed employee’s personal circumstances. Not the employer’s.
The Bardal decision also makes clear that dismissed employees are not limited to recovering salary alone. Rather, they are entitled to all amounts they would have earned had they continued to work throughout the notice period.
This 1960 decision has stood the test of time. It remains foundational to Canadian employment law.
If you have been dismissed, are facing a dismissal, are experiencing issues at work, or simply want to understand your rights, we are here to help. Learn more about Inspire Law or book a consultation to discuss your specific situation.
This article is for general informational purposes only, does not constitute legal advice, and is not directed at any particular client or case. The views expressed herein are based on current law, specific facts and available information and may not be applicable to your specific situation or to any matter on which we may act. You should not rely on this material in place of consulting a qualified lawyer about your own situation.
About the Author
Susan Kootnekoff is a lawyer and founder of Inspire Law, an employment and human rights law practice that serves clients across British Columbia and beyond. She represents clients in employment related matters including wrongful dismissal claims, employment contract negotiations, severance negotiations, human rights complaints and workplace rights.
© 2025 Susan Kootnekoff, Barrister & Solicitor
