Accurate
Country-specific legal content
Drafted with legal expertise for each jurisdiction, far more thorough than AI-generated drafts that copy generic clauses across borders.
Career & EmploymentCanada
CLC Unjust Dismissal Complaint — Grounds & Submissions (Canada)
If you work for a bank, telecom, airline or interprovincial transport company in Canada and were dismissed without cause, you hold a remedy most Canadian employees do not: the unjust dismissal complaint under section 240 of the Canada Labour Code. The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed in Wilson v Atomic Energy that a federal employer cannot simply pay you out — the dismissal must be just, and the remedy can include reinstatement with back pay. The window is 90 days. Our Canadian template produces the complaint and submissions: eligibility shown, the manager and layoff exclusions answered, the dismissal measured against the framework, and the statutory minimums claimed alongside.
Free to useInstant PDFNo account required
PDF (free) + editable Word (.docx) with Expert
Unjust Dismissal Complaint — Grounds and Submissions
Complaint Under Section 240 Of The Canada Labour Code · June 10, 2026
Harpreet S. Gill
230 Sherway Gardens Road, Etobicoke ON M9C 0A2
+1 (647) 555-0139
harpreet.gill@email.ca
June 10, 2026
Head of Compliance and Enforcement — Labour Program
Employment and Social Development Canada
UNJUST DISMISSAL COMPLAINT — CANADA LABOUR CODE, s.240
Dismissed May 4, 2026
To the Head of Compliance and Enforcement,
I make this complaint in writing under subsection 240(1) of the Canada Labour Code: I was dismissed by Continental Trust Bank of Canada, a bank within federal jurisdiction, effective May 4, 2026, and I consider the dismissal to be unjust. This letter is my complaint and supporting submissions — it sets out my eligibility, the facts, why the dismissal is unjust, and the remedy I seek.
I make this complaint in writing under subsection 240(1) of the Canada Labour Code: I was dismissed by Continental Trust Bank of Canada, a bank within federal jurisdiction, effective May 4, 2026, and I consider the dismissal to be unjust. This letter is my complaint and supporting submissions — it sets out my eligibility, the facts, why the dismissal is unjust, and the remedy I seek.
1.
COMPLAINANT AND EMPLOYER
Complainant: Harpreet S. Gill
Address: 230 Sherway Gardens Road, Etobicoke ON M9C 0A2
Telephone: +1 (647) 555-0139
Email: harpreet.gill@email.ca
Employer: Continental Trust Bank of Canada
Employer address: 100 King Street West
Toronto ON M5X 1A9
Position held: Senior Client Services Officer
Employment from: March 7, 2022 to May 4, 2026
Address: 230 Sherway Gardens Road, Etobicoke ON M9C 0A2
Telephone: +1 (647) 555-0139
Email: harpreet.gill@email.ca
Employer: Continental Trust Bank of Canada
Employer address: 100 King Street West
Toronto ON M5X 1A9
Position held: Senior Client Services Officer
Employment from: March 7, 2022 to May 4, 2026
2.
FEDERAL JURISDICTION
The employer is a bank. Banking is a federal work or undertaking, so the employment relationship is governed by Part III of the Canada Labour Code — including the unjust dismissal remedy in Division XIV — and not by provincial employment standards.
3.
ELIGIBILITY AND THE 90-DAY PERIOD
Under s.240(1), the complaint is open to a dismissed person who has completed twelve consecutive months of continuous employment and is not a member of a group of employees subject to a collective agreement. My service from March 7, 2022 to May 4, 2026 amounts to approximately 49 months (4 years) of continuous employment — the eligibility condition is met. Under s.240(2), the complaint must be made within ninety days of the dismissal — for my dismissal, on or about August 2, 2026. This complaint is made within that period; to the extent any question of timing arises, I ask that the period be extended under s.240(3).
4.
THE DISMISSAL
On May 4, 2026 I was called into a meeting, told my employment was ending "effective today", and walked out of the branch. No reason was given in the meeting or in the letter handed to me, which offered eight weeks of pay conditional on a release. My performance reviews for 2023 through 2025 all rate me as meets-or-exceeds expectations, and three weeks before the dismissal I had raised concerns in writing about unpaid overtime in the branch.
5.
OUTCOME SOUGHT
I ask that the dismissal be found unjust and that I be reinstated to my position, with compensation for the remuneration lost between dismissal and reinstatement. I also claim the statutory minimums owed on any termination — graduated notice and severance pay under ss.230 and 235 — which are floors independent of this complaint and are not consideration for any release.
6.
ELIGIBILITY MATRIX — MANAGER, COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT, LAYOFF
Not a manager: Division XIV does not apply to managers (s.167(3)) — but the exclusion is construed narrowly and turns on actual autonomous decision-making power, not on a job title. My role was not managerial in that sense: My title included "Senior" but I had no authority to hire, discipline or dismiss anyone, no budget, no direct reports, and every escalation went to the branch manager. I worked from a queue assigned by the operations team.
No collective agreement: I was not a member of any group of employees subject to a collective agreement; condition (b) of s.240(1) is met.
No s.242(3.1) exclusion: This was not a layoff for lack of work or the discontinuance of a function, and no other statutory redress procedure covers it — the exclusion in s.242(3.1) has no application.
No collective agreement: I was not a member of any group of employees subject to a collective agreement; condition (b) of s.240(1) is met.
No s.242(3.1) exclusion: This was not a layoff for lack of work or the discontinuance of a function, and no other statutory redress procedure covers it — the exclusion in s.242(3.1) has no application.
7.
WHY THE DISMISSAL IS UNJUST
In Wilson v Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd, 2016 SCC 29, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed what Division XIV means: a federally regulated employer cannot dismiss an eligible employee without cause and buy the dismissal off with notice and severance. The scheme entitles the employee to reasons, to an adjudication of whether the dismissal was just, and to remedies — including reinstatement — that the common law does not offer. I was given no reasons for the dismissal at the time, and none have been provided since. A dismissal for which the employer offers no justification cannot be a just one — and under s.241 of the Code I am entitled, on request, to a written statement of the reasons within fifteen days. The employer should be held to whatever it puts in that statement.
The facts in detail: The dismissal letter states no ground. The only events preceding it were my written overtime concerns of April 13, 2026 and a positive client-satisfaction review the same month. If the bank now advances a reason, it will be one never put to me while employed.
Procedural failures: No warning of any kind, no performance improvement plan, no investigation in which I was asked a single question, and no opportunity to respond before the decision was made and implemented within one meeting.
Inconsistencies the adjudicator should weigh: The dismissal letter calls the termination "without cause", yet the branch manager told two colleagues the same week that I had been "let go for attitude" — the bank cannot run both positions.
The facts in detail: The dismissal letter states no ground. The only events preceding it were my written overtime concerns of April 13, 2026 and a positive client-satisfaction review the same month. If the bank now advances a reason, it will be one never put to me while employed.
Procedural failures: No warning of any kind, no performance improvement plan, no investigation in which I was asked a single question, and no opportunity to respond before the decision was made and implemented within one meeting.
Inconsistencies the adjudicator should weigh: The dismissal letter calls the termination "without cause", yet the branch manager told two colleagues the same week that I had been "let go for attitude" — the bank cannot run both positions.
8.
REMEDY — REINSTATEMENT AND MAKE-WHOLE COMPENSATION
On a finding of unjust dismissal, s.242 empowers the Board to order the employer to pay compensation, to reinstate the employee, and to do any other like thing that is equitable to remedy or counteract any consequence of the dismissal — a make-whole jurisdiction broader than damages. My primary position is reinstatement: the employment relationship was long and functional, the role exists, and reinstatement with back pay is the remedy that actually counteracts the dismissal. Compensation in lieu is my alternative position only.
Losses to date and continuing: Lost base salary of $5,950 per month since May 4, 2026, lost benefits coverage (extended health and dental valued at roughly $410 per month), and a forfeited annual incentive averaging $4,800 over the last three years.
Mitigation: I have been seeking comparable employment; my record to date: I have applied to five client-services roles at other financial institutions since May 12, registered with two staffing agencies, and attended one interview on June 2.
Losses to date and continuing: Lost base salary of $5,950 per month since May 4, 2026, lost benefits coverage (extended health and dental valued at roughly $410 per month), and a forfeited annual incentive averaging $4,800 over the last three years.
Mitigation: I have been seeking comparable employment; my record to date: I have applied to five client-services roles at other financial institutions since May 12, registered with two staffing agencies, and attended one interview on June 2.
9.
STATUTORY MINIMUMS, REASONS AND THE PROCESS
Independently of this complaint, the Code’s termination floors apply: s.230 graduated notice — in force since 1 February 2024 — runs from two weeks after three months of service to eight weeks at eight or more years, and s.235 severance pay adds two days’ wages per completed year of service, with a five-day minimum, after twelve months — together with a written statement of benefits. The employer has not paid these minimums. I claim them now — they are owed unconditionally, whatever the outcome of the complaint.
Detail: As at the date of this complaint I have received no notice pay and no severance pay — only my final regular pay. On four completed years of service, s.230 graduated notice is four weeks and s.235 severance is eight days of wages.
Request for written reasons: I hereby request, under s.241(1), a written statement of the reasons for my dismissal, to be provided within fifteen days of this request. The employer should be held to that statement throughout this proceeding.
Process: I understand the Labour Program may attempt to assist the parties to settle and that, failing settlement, the complaint may be referred to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, which hears it directly or through an external adjudicator with the powers in s.242. I ask that the file proceed to referral without delay if the employer does not engage meaningfully.
Detail: As at the date of this complaint I have received no notice pay and no severance pay — only my final regular pay. On four completed years of service, s.230 graduated notice is four weeks and s.235 severance is eight days of wages.
Request for written reasons: I hereby request, under s.241(1), a written statement of the reasons for my dismissal, to be provided within fifteen days of this request. The employer should be held to that statement throughout this proceeding.
Process: I understand the Labour Program may attempt to assist the parties to settle and that, failing settlement, the complaint may be referred to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, which hears it directly or through an external adjudicator with the powers in s.242. I ask that the file proceed to referral without delay if the employer does not engage meaningfully.
10.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND CONTACT
Please acknowledge receipt of this complaint in writing, confirm the date it was received, and quote the file number in correspondence. I ask to be contacted if any further information or document would assist, and that all decisions be communicated to me in writing with reasons. All my rights are reserved, including the statutory minimums under ss.230 and 235 and the full remedies under s.242.
YOURS TRULY,
Harpreet S. Gill
Complainant
Date: ____________________
COMPLAINANT
Harpreet S. Gill
Date: ____________________
Available as a print-ready PDF or an editable Microsoft Word (.docx) file.
What Is a CLC Unjust Dismissal Complaint?
It is the federal dismissal remedy in Canada — Division XIV of Part III of the Canada Labour Code. A non-unionized employee of a federally regulated employer who has completed 12 consecutive months of continuous employment may complain in writing, within 90 days of dismissal, that the dismissal was unjust (s.240). The complaint goes to the Head of Compliance and Enforcement at the federal Labour Program; if it does not settle, it is decided by the Canada Industrial Relations Board or an external adjudicator with full remedial powers under s.242 — compensation, reinstatement, and anything else equitable to counteract the dismissal.
The regime is fundamentally different from the wrongful dismissal claim a provincial employee would bring. In Wilson v Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd, 2016 SCC 29, the Supreme Court of Canada held that under Division XIV a federal employer cannot dismiss an eligible employee without cause and buy the dismissal off with notice and severance — the employee is entitled to reasons, to an adjudication of whether the dismissal was just, and to remedies the common law cannot give, reinstatement first among them. Adjudicators expect what just dismissals have: real reasons, warnings, progressive discipline, an investigation, a chance to respond.
Eligibility is where employers fight: they argue the employee was a manager (the exclusion is construed narrowly, on actual autonomous authority, not titles), that a collective agreement applied, or that the dismissal was really a layoff for lack of work or a discontinuance of a function under s.242(3.1) — the favourite escape hatch, because a "restructuring" label is free. A complaint that closes those exits in advance, and that demands written reasons under s.241 (the employer has 15 days), forces the file onto the merits. Alongside it all, the Code's minimums — graduated notice of 2 to 8 weeks under s.230 and severance of 2 days per year under s.235 — are owed unconditionally.
What's Covered in This Template
The complaint follows the sequence the Labour Program and the Canada Industrial Relations Board work through — jurisdiction, eligibility, timing, merits, remedy.
Federal Jurisdiction Statement
Bank, telecom, airline, interprovincial transport or other federal undertaking — the letter states why the Canada Labour Code, not provincial employment standards, governs.
90-Day Deadline Tracking
The s.240(2) deadline computed from your dismissal date and stated in the complaint, with the s.240(3) extension invoked protectively.
12-Month Eligibility Shown
Continuous service calculated from your dates — and where the count is close, the continuity argument (predecessors, bridged gaps) made instead of conceded.
Manager Exclusion Answered
The s.167(3) exclusion turns on real autonomous authority — hiring, discipline, budgets — not on the word "Senior" in a title. The letter writes your actual role.
Layoff Escape Hatch Closed
Where the employer calls it a restructuring, the letter rebuts s.242(3.1) with the facts — continuing work, refilled duties, active hiring — and puts the burden where it belongs.
Wilson Framework on the Merits
No reasons, shifting reasons, performance claims without warnings, or a restructuring that does not hold up — the matching framework written around your dismissal.
Section 241 Reasons Demand
The written demand that obliges the employer to state its reasons within 15 days — and holds it to that statement for the rest of the file.
Reinstatement-First Remedy
The s.242 make-whole jurisdiction positioned: reinstatement with back pay as the primary ask, full compensation in the alternative, losses itemized.
Statutory Minimums Claimed
Graduated notice (2–8 weeks, s.230 as amended February 2024) and severance (2 days per year, minimum 5, s.235) claimed unconditionally — accepting them releases nothing.
CIRB Process Mapped
The Labour Program settlement stage and the referral to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, with the file positioned to move if the employer stalls.
How to Create Your Unjust Dismissal Complaint
Five steps inside the 90-day window.
- 1
Confirm You Are Federal
Banks, telecoms, airlines, marine and rail, interprovincial trucking, federal Crown corporations. Provincial employees use the wrongful dismissal route instead — different system entirely.
- 2
Check the Two Numbers
12 months of continuous service by the dismissal date, and fewer than 90 days since it. The template computes both from your dates.
- 3
Tell the Dismissal Story
The meeting, what reason (if any) was given, and the context — including anything you raised shortly before that the timing now explains.
- 4
Close the Exits (Expert)
Why you were not a manager in the legal sense, that no collective agreement applied, and why any layoff label does not survive the facts.
- 5
Demand Reasons and File
Add the s.241 written-reasons demand, claim the s.230/s.235 minimums, and file with the federal Labour Program — keeping a dated copy.
Why Doxuno documents are different
Four things that make our templates more thorough than AI-generated drafts and more current than static template libraries.
Always current
Always current with the law
Templates carrying statute references are continuously updated as the law changes. Your document always reflects the current legal framework.
Free PDF
Print-ready PDF
Free to download. Vector text, embedded fonts, statute citations baked in. Print, sign, file. Ready for any signing flow including electronic signature.
Word · .docx
Editable Word (.docx)
Continue editing in Word after download. Add custom clauses, reuse the template for similar agreements, or share with a colleague for collaborative review.
Requires Expert one-time unlock or any paid Doxuno subscription.
Legal Considerations
Division XIV is one of the strongest employment remedies in Canada — for the 6 percent of employees it covers, inside its tight window.
This template provides general information for federally regulated Canadian employees and is not legal advice. Constructive dismissal timing, alleged-cause files and manager-status disputes are precisely where adjudications turn — for those, get advice from an employment lawyer quickly; the 90-day clock does not wait.
Reviewed for Canadian federal labour law
Who the Remedy Covers
Non-unionized employees of federal works and undertakings — banking, telecommunications and broadcasting, air carriers, marine and rail, trucking that crosses provincial or international borders, and federal Crown corporations — with 12 consecutive months of continuous employment (Canada Labour Code, s.240(1)). Managers are excluded by s.167(3), but the exclusion is read narrowly: it requires genuine autonomous decision-making power, and Canadian adjudicators look past inflated titles to what the person could actually decide.
Why Wilson Changed Everything
Before 2016, some courts allowed federal employers to dismiss without cause as long as they paid common-law-style packages. Wilson v Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd, 2016 SCC 29 ended that: Division XIV displaces the common law position, the dismissal itself must be just, and pay in lieu cannot launder an unjust one. The practical consequence is leverage — a federal employer facing a s.240 complaint is defending the dismissal, not negotiating weeks.
The s.242(3.1) Battleground
No complaint lies where the dismissal was a layoff for lack of work or the discontinuance of a function — so "restructuring" is the standard defence. Adjudicators test it on substance: did the function actually end, were the duties redistributed in name only, is the employer hiring? The employer bears the burden of establishing the exclusion, and contemporaneous job postings are the classic rebuttal.
Remedies and the Floors Beneath
On a finding of unjust dismissal, s.242 authorizes compensation, reinstatement and any other equitable counteraction — a make-whole jurisdiction. Independently, the Code's termination floors apply to any dismissal: graduated notice of 2 to 8 weeks by service (s.230, in force since 1 February 2024) and severance pay of 2 days' wages per year with a 5-day minimum (s.235), plus a written statement of benefits. These are owed whatever the complaint's outcome, and accepting them releases nothing.
If You Are Not Federal After All
Provincially regulated employees — the overwhelming majority in Canada — pursue dismissal through common law wrongful dismissal (see our severance review demand letter) and wage shortfalls through provincial complaints (see our employment standards complaint letter). Dismissals connected to a disability, family status or religious accommodation may also engage human rights protections — our workplace accommodation request builds that record. And after any dismissal, apply for EI promptly; if Service Canada refuses, our EI request for reconsideration template handles the challenge.
Frequently Asked Questions
Ninety Days, One Strong Remedy — Use It Properly
Create your CLC unjust dismissal complaint in minutes: federal jurisdiction stated, eligibility shown, the manager and layoff exclusions answered, the Wilson framework on the merits, reinstatement positioned and the statutory minimums claimed — in formal Canadian letter format. Download the PDF free, or unlock Expert for the eligibility matrix, grounds framework and remedy positioning.
Free PDF · Editable Word with Expert · No account required