Stowar v. Telehop Communications Inc.

In November 2008, Kelly Stowar was laid off by her employer, Telehop Communications. She was given a letter by Telehop’s HR manager stating that she would be paid five months’ termination pay. Ms. Stowar signed her name in the space provided on the page, indicating that she was satisfied with the contents of the letter. However, a few days after signing the letter, Ms. Stowar returned to Telehop’s office to hand in some company property. She was called into a meeting with Telehop’s HR manager. Ms. Stowar was told that the company had made a “mistake” and that she would only be receiving three weeks’ termination pay, not the five months she was initially offered. Ms. Stowar was then asked to sign a release indicating that she agreed with the revised offer, which she refused to do, claiming she had agreed to a deal for five months’ pay just days earlier. Telehop refused to honour its original offer and Ms. Stowar hired Ryan to sue Telehop. Ryan took her case to court and successfully argued that Telehop’s original offer letter constituted a binding contract. Ms. Stowar received the full five months’ pay.