Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The situation of being vulnerable to a lawsuit by an employee who has been terminated most often arises, almost always arises, in certain situations. One, where there has been termination without cause, and secondly, where there has been termination without sufficient notice or severance in lieu of notice.
The provisions of these contracts that were indicated in the Auditor General's report indicates that the employees were employees at pleasure, who could be dismissed at any time, whose employment contracts could be terminated at any time, with or without cause, and that on termination of their contract, no matter what the reason for that termination, there would be certain severance payable to them, and that severance was specified in the contract.
So we are not dealing with a situation of an employee being terminated earlier than what their contract anticipated, or someone who is on an indefinite term being terminated without appropriate notice.
And I would be of the view that the government is entitled to rely on the provisions of that type of employment contract and the termination payment requirements contained in it in the same manner that the employees in this case are entitled to rely on the termination agreements which followed, which set out the severance payments that they are entitled to receive. There is a very important and well-known principle of contract law, which is the freedom of contract, where you can enter into a bargain and the bargain may be a good one or a poor one, but if it is entered into in contract law, it will be binding on both parties.
There has been some case law around this area. At pleasure contracts are often litigated in the courts and the authorities that I have had a chance to look at indicate that where there are specific terms in the contract that deal with termination with or without cause and with or without notice, which contain severance requirements, all parties are going to be bound and held to that. There would be some consideration question about why you would have those provisions if you are not entitled to rely on them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.