answer this question: How does the Principle extend or alter the common law?

based on this response: In February $2014,$ Sybil Goruk was on administrative leave from the company she worked at$,$ Greater Barrie Chamber of Commerce, and then later dismissed in April $2014$ for just cause. The Chamber believes they were able to dismiss Goruk without notice or compensation. Goruk believes that she was dismissed because of nothing. Sybil says the Chamber$$s position must be sincere$.$ Goruk says that her dismissal was wrong and wants compensation for it$.$ She would like to be compensated with two years of her salary and car allowance, money for her unduly dismissal, and money for punitive damages due to the Chamber$$s malicious behavior. The total comes to about $$838,200$ in compensation for what they put her through.

Sybil Goruk had to always be honest, and loyal and must act in the best interest of Chambers. The Chamber argues that Goruk was the key employee, being the most senior management, especially with the turnover rate of the board. The Chamber believes Goruk was not looking out for their best interest, which was why they decided to fire her with just cause. The findings state that Sybil Goruk was in a fiduciary position and had to look in the best interest of the company while also being honest and loyal, which she understood. Sybil Goruk understood what was involved in the executive director position when she took it off and it is believed that she implicitly looked for their best interest.

There were many allegations such as the altered bank document, unauthorized vacation pays, unauthorized pay raise, related party contracts, suppressed auditor letter, the American Express card, impeding access to financial records, and the e$-$broadcast. Due to the fact of the forged banking document and the unauthorized pay raise, Goruk was engaged in willful misconduct and did not get noticeable pay. She also wanted damages for her mental health suffering but was told that the just cause of her dismissal was in fact correct and she did not need any notice. In the end, it was found that the Chamber was right to dismiss Sybil Goruk due to just cause. The board could not trust her anymore and trust was a big part of her position. Goruks claim was dismissed.

B$)$ The principle from Goruk v$.$ Greater Barrie Chamber of Commerce, $2021$ ONSC $6290,$ goes towards the enforceability of the termination clauses within contracts of employment and emphasizes the kind of language that upholds the minimum standards of employment provided for in legislation. In this case, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice reconsidered the termination clause in the employment contract for its validity and enforceability. This principle emphasizes that to be valid, there should be a clear and unambiguous termination clause that cannot breach legislation regarding employment standards. A termination clause that is vague or capable of giving the employer a right to terminate employment with disregard for the employment standard minimums would not then be enforced. This then makes the employer give common law notice, which is usually more than the statutory minimum. This decision reiterates the absolute need for employers to meticulously detail the employment contract so that the clause on termination is worded very precisely and is fully compliant with the legislative requirements to limit any unwanted liabilities. This ruling has implications for employers who are otherwise used to thinking of terminations as involving just dismissal and the payment of dues. This points to complex legalities and, more importantly, to the issue of legal compliance with the employment contract.

C$)$ The legal theory underpinning the principle derived from Goruk v$.$ Greater Barrie Chamber of Commerce, $2021$ ONSC $6290,$ lies within the realm of contract law, specifically concerning the enforceability of termination clauses within employment contracts. This principle underscores the imperative of crafting termination language that aligns with and upholds the minimum standards of employment mandated by legislation. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, through its deliberation on the termination clause in the employment contract, underscored the necessity for clarity and precision in such contractual provisions. It elucidated that for a termination clause to be deemed valid and enforceable, it must be unambiguous and not in contravention of statutory employment standards. Clauses lacking specificity or those affording employers leeway to circumvent minimum employment standards would consequently be deemed unenforceable. The ruling in this case underscores the importance of meticulous drafting of employment contracts to ensure compliance with legislative requirements, thereby mitigating potential liabilities for employers. By necessitating clear and precise termination language, the court reaffirmed the significance of adhering to statutory employment standards an