Employers may question whether promotions, pay increases, or added responsibility require a new employment contract. In LaPlume v. AAA Internet Publishing Inc. dba WTFast, 2025 BCSC 2139, the B.C. Supreme Court confirmed that this is not always the case.
In this decision, the Court considered whether changes to an employee’s role over time were sufficient to invalidate a termination clause in an existing employment agreement. The ruling provides helpful guidance for employers managing termination risk where long-serving employees argue that their original contracts no longer apply due to role evolution.
The employee’s role over time
Mr. LaPlume worked for a Kelowna-based technology company for more than nine years. Over the course of his employment, his role changed in ways that will feel familiar to many employers:
- His salary increased several times and ultimately doubled
- His job title changed twice
- He took on some additional supervisory responsibilities
Despite these changes, the core of his role remained largely the same. He continued testing games, writing configuration files, reporting to the same manager, working the same hours, and performing his work in the same location.
When Mr. LaPlume was terminated, the employer relied on the termination clause in his original employment contract, signed nine years earlier. Mr. LaPlume argued that the contract was no longer enforceable because the substratum of his employment had changed. Claims like this are often made where an employee’s role has evolved gradually over time. The issue for the Court was whether those changes were significant enough to engage the doctrine of changed substratum.
What is the doctrine of changed substratum?
The doctrine of changed substratum is a legal argument used to challenge the enforceability of an employment contract. It applies where an employee’s role has changed so significantly that the original agreement no longer reflects the employment relationship.
In today’s employment landscape, where many contracts limit severance entitlements, this doctrine is frequently raised in wrongful dismissal claims. However, as this decision confirms, it is not a catch-all solution for employees whose roles have evolved over time.
The Court’s decision: Ordinary career progression is not enough
The Court rejected Mr. LaPlume’s argument, with Justice Ahmad emphasizing that incremental and predictable changes to a role do not erode an employment agreement. The threshold for changed substratum is intentionally high.
As the Court explained:
“To erode the substratum of an employment contract, a change must be dramatic and fundamental; incremental and predictable changes in the terms of employment are an insufficient basis on which to conclude that an employment contract is unenforceable.”
Importantly, the Court also confirmed that the mere passage of time, even across nearly a decade of employment, does not undermine an otherwise valid termination clause.
There was no evidence that Mr. LaPlume’s role transformed from a technical position into management or executive leadership, or that his level of authority, autonomy, or accountability fundamentally changed. While his compensation and responsibilities increased, the essential nature of his role remained intact.
The key question then is not whether a role changed, but how it changed. The practical test confirmed by the Court is whether the employee’s role evolved incrementally within the same employment relationship, or instead transformed into a fundamentally different position altogether. Only the latter will undermine an existing employment agreement.
Key takeaways for employers
This decision offers practical reassurance for employers. Most modern employment contracts are drafted with the expectation that duties and responsibilities will evolve over time. When the core function of the role, reporting structure, and status remain consistent, a well-drafted agreement will continue to govern the relationship.
At a time when employers are seeing increasingly aggressive claims built on modest job evolution, this case provides a measured and workable framework. It confirms that changed substratum remains a narrow doctrine, reserved for rare cases where the employment relationship has truly transformed, not where an employee has simply progressed in their career.
Employers should ensure that employment agreements are drafted with flexibility in mind and reviewed periodically as roles evolve. When done properly, those agreements can remain enforceable for years.
If you have questions about employment contracts, termination provisions, or how role changes may affect enforceability, contact our team – we’re here to help!
