canada education
Employer Tuition Repayment
<p>1 year ago, I accepted a new job with an education budget included.  I turned down their initial job offer.  When they asked if there was anything that could entice me to reconsider, I countered with the options of an increased salary or an education budget.</p>

<p>The job became too much... I was given many duties well outside of the job description I signed when I took the job.  Also, an employee that left was not replaced and I had to take on many of his duties as well.  I have been stressed to the point of affecting my health and working endless hours of overtime that I don't get paid for because I'm on salary.</p>

<p>Now that I have accepted another job (similar pay, less stress/hours), I am being asked to repay the education budget and realizing that the job offer did stipulate 2 years of employment.  I am trying to negotiate with the employer based on the fact that I wouldn't have accepted the job without the education.  However, if that fails, I still think I have a case because the clause is worded "I will to the best of my ability continue to work for (company) for 2 years".  I have put every effort I have into the job, put in all the time required to keep up with the added duties, and in the end I am still being asked for more.</p>

<p>Would the "best of my ability" argument hold up if I get taken to court?</p>

<p>(Amount: $2500, Country: Canada)</p>

<p>There is a general common law doctrine of contract interpretation which tells  us that ambiguities are construed against the drafter. In your case, had the employer intended to require two years of work (or else reimbursement back to them) <em>they could have explicitly stated this</em>. The fact is, the contract is written as it is for a reason, likely to entice you to accept the offer of employment. They softballed the requirements to get you to take the job and now they are trying to play hardball.</p>

<p>I would hope that a court would find this and tell the employer to think about these clauses next time. The fact is, after a deal goes south is a bad time for an employer to start explaining what these terms mean.</p>

<p>You have fulfilled your half of the bargain. If the facts are as you say they are then you satisfied the "best of my ability" condition.</p>

<p>Another problem you might have is if the employer does not take you to court but instead continues to make threats, maybe sends a collections agency after you. In that case you will need to get an injunction to stop the employer. In other words, get a court to state that you do not owe them any money and enjoin them from continuing to as if you do.</p>

<p>EDIT: as a commenter mentioned, a contract may explicitly provide that ambiguous terms will not be construed against either party.</p>

<p>I cannot say how Conract Law differs from U.S. law under in Canada; however, if this was in the U.S. it would be difficult to win. I'd have to (meaning you should have an attorney) look at the rest of the contract, but these educational/tuition reimbursement incentives in employment contracts are pretty typical and the employer generally gets to recoup if you don't fulfill the minimum commitment. Courts don't like to invalidate these societally beneficial types of contractual obligations on the basis that the job ended up being too much work or much harder than anticipated.  Usually, there are definitions that outline the meaning of key terms. However, I can see "best of your ability" really meaning "unless you become disabled", except if all of your duties are clearly outlined in the contract and you can show that you were clearly forced to operate far in excess of these standards. </p>

<p>But again.... nobody can really assess this to any reasonable degree without analyzing the whole contract.</p>
