Shultz v Prococious Technology Inc., dba Cleardent, 2022 BCSC 1420 (CanLII)
[21] Around March 29, 2021, the Plaintiff received a promotion to Sales Manager, and an increased salary. The March 2021 written employment agreement (“Employment Agreement”) provides:
6.3 Termination by Company Without Cause. The Company may terminate the Employee’s employment for any reasons, without cause, upon providing the Employee with only the notice or payment in lieu of notice (or a combination thereof) in the minimum amount required by the British Columbia Employment Standards Act, as amended from time to time. Benefits will end on the last day worked.
6.4 The Employee understands that by complying with this Article 6.3, the Company satisfies its entire obligation under statute and common law to provide notice or pay in lieu of notice to the Employee in the event that their employment is terminated. In no event will the Employee receive less notice or pay in lieu of notice than the minimum termination notice or pay in lieu of notice they are entitled to under the British Columbia Employment Standards Act, as may be amended from time to time.
(“Termination Provision”)
The Court upheld the employment contract, which complied with BC Employment Standards, and having found that she had been employed a little more than two years, concluded that the two weeks paid by the employer satisfied the contractual entitlement and, accordingly, she had not been wrongfully dismissed.
An important question before the Court was whether the Plaintiff was entitled to a bonus. The Court concluded that she was. On consideration of the Employment Agreement as a whole, the bonus was integral to the Plaintiff’s compensation based on her position as a Sales Manager and the structure of remuneration as including a base salary plus a bonus. The bonus in this case meets the criteria as set out in Gillies and Piron. In Gillies, the Court noted:
[45] The Court must assess whether the bonus is “integral” to the employee’s compensation by considering the following factors from Gillies v. Goldman Sachs Canada Inc., 2000 BCSC 355 [Gillies]:
- A bonus is received each year although in different amounts;
- Bonuses are required to remain competitive with other employers;
- Bonuses were historically awarded and the employer had never exercised his discretion against the employee; and
- The bonus constituted a significant component of the employee’s overall compensation.
[51] In Piron, the employer argued the bonuses were discretionary, but the Court of Appeal found they were a “significant part” of the employee’s remuneration. The Court of Appeal found, at para. 22, that “the employment contract entitled [the employee] to be compensated by way of a bonus in addition to his hourly wages”. Though the amount was “subject to negotiation”, there was general agreement that it should “fairly reflect the responsibility undertaken” by the employee, and it was anticipated that the amount would be determined after a “process of negotiation” between the parties. I find that is the case here.
The Court did not find basis for aggravated damages.