Sébastien Lorquet and Jocelyn Duquette, for defendant/
P.B. KANE J.: —
 The plaintiff filed a motion under rule 21.01(1) of the Rules
of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 in order to raise a
question of law.
 The plaintiff applied for a court order stating that clause
12.4 of the employment contract entered into by Mr. Paquette
and Quadraspec Inc. and dated December 17, 1998 (the “
contract”) regarding notice of termination of employment (“clause
12.4”) is considered null and void since it does not comply with
the minimum requirements of the Employment Standards Act,
2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 (the “Act”).
 Mr. Paquette had been employed by the respondent and
their predecessors since July 22, 1983. The plaintiff worked in
Ontario since 1987 and the Act applied to his position.
 On or around December 17, 1998, the parties signed a new
 On March 14, 2011, Quadraspec terminated Mr. Paquette
without notice and without just and sufficient cause.
 Mr. Paquette alleges that according to the case law based
on the decision in Machtinger v. HOJ Industries Ltd., 
1 S.C.R. 986,  S.C.J. No. 41, clause 12.4 of the contract
regarding notice of termination and pay in lieu of notice is null
and void because it does not comply with the minimum requirements of the Act, namely, ss. 60, 61 and 64.
 Quadraspec alleges that clause 12.4 of the contract dealing
with termination is valid and enforceable against the plaintiff
and that by signing said employment contract, Mr. Paquette
waived any claim to any additional amount as an alternative to
notice of termination, under the common law.
 Quadraspec is a company headquartered in Quebec.
Quadraspec specializes in plating, machining and adjusting of
industrial equipment parts. The company operates three plants in
Quebec and Ontario, that is in Montreal, Lively and Oakville.
 Mr. Paquette had been hired by another company predecessor of Quadraspec on July 22, 1983. He has been continuously
employed by Quadraspec and their predecessors at least since
the spring of 1987.