How have the courts interpreted the ambiguous "fixed term" contract?

The judge found that the contracts signed each year by the plaintiff were not ambiguous. “No opening [was] provided to the court to ‘interpret’ the contract in a manner more favourable to the plaintiff” (Van Mensel v. Walpole Island First Nation, supra, at para. 7). The judge made this finding “... mindful of the danger of repeated ‘fixed term’ contracts, but in this case the underlying reality of the employment was that the parties specifically knew they were entering into successive, independent contractor, fixed term contracts” (Van Mensel v. Walpole Island First Nation, supra, at para. 18).

Having regard to the observation made in the opening paragraph of these reasons, it is important that the judge noted: In my view, there was no inequality of bargaining power in this matter. In fact, the plaintiff was treated with a great deal of respect and asked to make initial contract submissions which would be seriously considered by the defendant, and were, in each case. (Van Mensel v. Walpole Island First Nation, supra, at para. 17)