How One Bad First Hire Built a Better Hiring System

The situation

Dov spent eight years as a court clerk before he and Jae-won, a licensed plumber, built a booking and dispatch platform that matched homeowners in and around Woodstock with vetted tradespeople for plumbing, drain, and small renovation jobs. Jae-won brought the trade knowledge and the first roster of contractors he trusted from his own years on the tools. Dov brought the process mind a courthouse teaches you: scheduling, documentation, knowing which forms matter. Three years in, the company had grown past a side project. Annual revenue was tracking toward the low millions, a small back office was handling dispatch and billing, and the founders needed their first real employee — someone to run day-to-day operations so they could stop doing it themselves at midnight.

They hired Hyun-woo on the strength of a good interview and a handshake. He'd managed scheduling for a similar service business before, he understood the trade side from having worked alongside plumbers himself, and he started within two weeks on a verbal offer: a stated salary, full-time hours, and an understanding that he'd take over operations. There was no written employment agreement. There was no offer letter. There was no employee handbook, because there had never been an employee to hand one to.

What went wrong

For the first several months, the arrangement worked well enough that the founders didn't think about the gap. Hyun-woo took over dispatch, built relationships with the contractor roster, and freed up Dov and Jae-won to focus on growing the client side of the business. But by his fourteenth month, it was clear the fit wasn't right. Hyun-woo was making scheduling commitments the contractors couldn't meet, client complaints were rising, and two of the plumbers who had been with the company from the start were threatening to leave over how their jobs were being booked. The founders decided to let him go.

That was when the absence of a written contract became a real problem rather than an abstract one. Without a signed agreement setting out how the employment relationship could end, Hyun-woo's entitlement on termination wasn't a fixed number — it was whatever a court would later say was reasonable, based on factors like his age, his role, how long he'd been employed, and how easily he could find comparable work. Ontario's Employment Standards Act, 2000 sets out minimum notice or pay in lieu that every non-unionized employee is entitled to, and those minimums are low for someone with roughly a year of service. But minimums are a floor, not a ceiling. Employers and employees are free to agree to more generous termination terms in a written contract — and when they don't, the common law fills the gap with a broader test of reasonable notice that can run to several months of pay for even a relatively short-tenured employee in a role like his. Dov and Jae-won had never turned the verbal offer into anything that limited that exposure. If Hyun-woo pushed back and the matter ended up in a legal dispute, defending a bare-minimum severance offer would be an uphill fight, and the cost of that fight — in legal fees and management time, whatever the outcome — was itself a cost they wanted to avoid.

There was a second problem sitting underneath the first. The company's roster of plumbers worked as independent contractors, invoicing the platform for completed jobs rather than being paid as employees. That structure made sense for the business, but it had never been formalized either. Nothing on paper described how much control the company exercised over how, when, and for whom the contractors worked — and that degree of control is exactly what determines, under Ontario and federal tax and employment tests, whether someone genuinely is an independent contractor or is actually an employee mislabelled as one. Get that wrong at scale, with a growing roster of tradespeople, and the exposure is far larger than one termination.

What we did

1. Resolved the immediate termination on manageable terms. We reviewed Hyun-woo's role, tenure, and compensation and helped the founders put forward a severance offer that reflected a realistic estimate of what a court would likely award, roughly three months' pay, rather than the statutory minimum alone. Framing the offer around a defensible number, in writing, with a signed release in exchange, closed the file within a few weeks without either side needing to escalate.
2. Built a standard written employment agreement for every future hire. The template set out compensation, hours, duties, confidentiality obligations, and — critically — a termination clause that limits what the company owes on dismissal to an amount the founders had chosen deliberately, drafted to comply with the Employment Standards Act, 2000 so it would hold up if ever challenged. A clear, compliant termination clause is what stood between the founders and the open-ended uncertainty they'd just lived through.
3. Added a defined probationary period to the template. New hires now start with an initial evaluation period spelled out in the contract itself, during which either side can end the relationship on short notice. It gives the founders a real trial run before a longer-term commitment locks in, and it gives new employees clarity about what to expect rather than finding out the rules only when something goes wrong.
4. Drafted a written independent contractor agreement for the plumber roster. The agreement described the contractors' autonomy over scheduling, use of their own tools and trucks, ability to work for other platforms, and invoicing arrangement — the factors that support genuine contractor status rather than disguised employment. We also flagged the operational habits, like the company directly assigning specific jobs at specific times, that could undercut that status if they became the norm, so the founders could see where the practical reality needed to match the paperwork.
5. Delivered a short employee handbook covering the basics. Conduct expectations, confidentiality of client and contractor data, use of company scheduling systems, and how performance issues would be raised and documented going forward — enough structure for a company with a handful of staff, without the weight of a policy manual built for a much larger organization.

The outcome

The termination itself resolved cleanly. Hyun-woo accepted the negotiated severance, signed a release, and the company avoided both a legal dispute and the drawn-out uncertainty of not knowing what a court might eventually decide he was owed. The bigger payoff came afterward. Over the following year, the company hired four more employees, each on the new written agreement, each starting with a defined probationary period. When one of those hires didn't work out after about ten weeks, the company relied on the probationary clause to end the relationship on short notice and modest cost, with none of the uncertainty that had shadowed the first termination.

The contractor agreements did their job too. When the company's accountant flagged, during a routine year-end review, that the growing size of the plumber roster and the volume of work flowing through the platform warranted a second look at how those relationships were structured, the written agreements and the operational changes that came with them gave the founders a clear, documented answer rather than an anxious scramble. Dov still says the eighteen months without a contract for their first hire were the most expensive lesson of the company's early life — not because of the money paid out, which was manageable, but because of how avoidable the whole situation had been.

What you can learn from this