When job titles change, but employment contracts don’t: Lessons from LaPlume

In LaPlume v. AAA Internet Publishing Inc., 2025 BCSC 2139, the British Columbia Supreme Court confirmed that an employment contract can remain enforceable even after many years of service, promotions and pay increases. The decision clarifies when an employee can – and cannot – argue that their job has changed so much that an old contract no longer applies.

For employers, the case offers helpful guidance on how courts view evolving roles in long-term employment relationships.

Background

Mr. LaPlume began working for AAA Internet Publishing Inc., a Kelowna-based technology company, in 2013. After a brief period as an independent contractor, he signed a written employment agreement as a junior developer.

Two provisions of the agreement became central to this dispute. First, the termination clause limited Mr. Laplume’s entitlement on a without-cause termination to a maximum of 16 weeks’ notice or pay in lieu. Second, the agreement expressly allowed the employer to change his position, duties, title or reporting structure over time, as long as the changes did not materially increase his workload or hours.

Over approximately 9.5 years of employment, Mr. LaPlume received several salary increases. He was promoted to manager of the games team in 2021 and to operations manager in 2022. Despite these changes, the original employment agreement was never replaced or updated.

In 2023, Mr. LaPlume’s employment was terminated without cause. The employer paid him 16 weeks’ pay in lieu of notice, relying on the termination clause in the contract.

Did contractual termination provisions apply?

Mr. LaPlume argued that his role had changed so much over time that the original employment agreement no longer reflected the reality of his job. He relied on what is known as the “changed substratum” doctrine, which recognizes that an employment contract is tied to a particular job as it existed at the time the agreement was made. Over time that job can evolve, but the doctrine comes into play if the change is so significant that the position at termination is no longer the same job in any meaningful sense.

When a changed substratum argument is successful, the Plaintiff is entitled to common law reasonable notice, which is often much higher than contractual notice.

The employer in this case argued that the changes to Mr. LaPlume’s role were gradual, expected and clearly allowed by the contract.

The Court rejected Mr. LaPlume’s claim and upheld the termination clause. Justice Ahmad explained that the changed substratum doctrine applies only in rare cases. To succeed, an employee must show that their role changed in a dramatic and fundamental way, such that the job at termination is “simply not the same job” the contract was intended to govern.

In this case, the Court focused on what actually changed and what stayed the same. Although Mr. LaPlume gained managerial titles and some supervisory duties, he continued to perform the same core technical work throughout his employment. His work hours, location and reporting structure did not change. The Court also viewed his salary increases as normal and expected.

Most importantly, the employment agreement clearly allowed the employer to adjust his role over time. This showed that both parties expected his job to evolve and intended the contract, including the termination clause, to continue to apply.

The Court concluded that the substratum of the employment contract had not been eroded. The termination clause remained enforceable, the employer had fully satisfied its obligations by paying 16 weeks’ pay in lieu of notice and the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed with costs.

Key takeaways

This decision confirms that promotions and pay increases do not automatically invalidate an employment contract. Courts will look closely at whether a role has truly changed in substance, not just in title.

For employers, the case highlights the value of clear contractual language that anticipates change. For employees, it shows that long service and career progression alone are not enough to avoid a termination clause.

LaPlume confirms that growth is expected in employment relationships – only dramatic transformation will displace a carefully drafted employment contract.

Our labour and employment team, one of the largest in Western Canada, helps employers to respond quickly and effectively to workforce challenges, providing proactive, practical and innovative advice and assistance on all labour and employment matters.

Share