Blog
BC Court of Appeal Upholds Human Rights Tribunal’s $75,000 award for Injury to Dignity
With respect to injury to dignity, the judicial review judge found that the $75,000 award was more than double of what had been awarded in previous cases. The Court of Appeal found his reasoning wanting, referring to Gichuru. The Court noted that there is no cap on injury to dignity awards and that such awards had been steadily increasing. “Judicial review is not to be treated as though it were a quantum appeal in a personal injury case. In a quantum appeal, the question is whether the award was a wholly erroneous estimate of the loss by comparison to the range established by the cases. Ranges established by previous cases play a more diminished role in the Tribunal’s determination of an award for injury to dignity.” Thus while previous awards are of some value, they are not determinative and must be decided on the particular facts of each case. The Tribunal’s $75,000 award was not patently unreasonable.
read moreEmployment Standards Legislation and Employment Contracts – Enforceability?
“[40] …. The parties have explicitly spelled out what they intend to do in the event any part of the contract is found to be unenforceable. In s. 12(2) the parties have provided that “[i]f any of the provisions of the present agreement is invalid or unable to be performed by virtue of any law, regulation…this modality shall in such case be considered to be modified or nullified, but only to the extent necessary to comply with the statute, regulation, order, legal requirement or principle and the other dispositions of the present agreement shall remain in force” [translation].”
read moreTort of Breach of Confidence and Invasion of Privacy: Posting Ex-Girlfriend’s Nude Video Online for Three Weeks – $100,000 General, Aggravated and Punitive Damages
The Court awarded $50,000 general damages. The Court distinguished Jones v. Tsige, where the award was a modest $10,000, on the basis that “the privacy right offended and the consequences to the plaintiff there were vastly less serious and offensive than the present case.” As well, because the Defendant’s conduct involved a breach of trust, the Court added $25,000 aggravated damages. Punitive damages was warranted [Para. 60]: “[The Defendant] gave no consideration to the inevitable impact of his actions on the plaintiff. He has not apologized; indeed, according to the plaintiff, despite being aware of the harm he has caused, when they have encountered one another since the event, he has had an insolent look on his face, and has shown no remorse. No apology has been forthcoming.” Considering proportionality, blameworthiness, vulnerability of the victim, malice on the part of the Defendant, the need for deterrence, the Court awarded $25,000 in punitive damages.
read moreSupreme Court of Canada – Unjust Dismissal – Non‑unionized Federal Employees Cannot Be Dismissed Without Cause
The Supreme Court of Canada released its long-awaited decision in Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., 2016 SCC 29 (CanLII), dealing with the unjust dismissal provisions of the Canada Labour Code. In a 6 – 3 decision, the majority concluded that the scheme of the legislation was to ensure that non‑unionized federal employees would be entitled to protection from being dismissed without cause, in a manner similar to employees covered by a collective agreement. This is consistent with the approach adopted by the vast majority of adjudicators since the 1978 amendments to the Code.
read moreContractual Language Matters – Employee Entitled to the Un-expired portion of the Term Contract Without Mitigation
There was a written employment contract was for a five-year term, commencing September 2012 (the “Employment Contract”). His employer, the respondent Benson Group Inc., terminated the appellant’s employment, without alleging cause, 23 months later. The Appellant sought damages in the amount of the unexpired portion of the five-year term, a little more than 3 years, or about $180,000.
read moreShowing up is Half the Battle –
In Dias, the ON LRB awarded 30 weeks’ pay to one employee ($15,840.00), and 4 weeks’ the other ($2,448.00) plus pre-judgment interest. In addition the employer was ordered to pay 4 weeks’ pay on account of “loss of employment,” and $1,500 on account of “mental distress.”
read moreRude, Unprofessional and Insubordinate Employee Properly Terminated for Cause
The evidence establishes that the plaintiff failed to complete tasks, failed to proceed with projects and strategies as directed by the defendant, James Mann, such that Mr. Mann had to assume some of those responsibilities himself, such as the lobbying for the FIT applications to fit within the deemed exemption, and indeed some of his inaction resulted in loss of contracts, to the detriment of the company. I am satisfied that the plaintiff displayed unprofessional, uncollegial, insolent, behaviour which is completely unacceptable in a professional workplace. He demonstrated insubordination, failed to follow reasonable instructions of the owner, James Mann, on numerous occasions, culminating in the May 26 exchange e-mails. The plaintiff used rude, aggressive, abusive language, criticized Mr. Mann, questioned his ability to manage and termed his company dysfunctional. He consciously or wilfully failed to follow orders and apologize to his co-workers as ordered by Mr. Mann which, given the circumstances, was a reasonable order and should have been followed. He was, in his treatment of co-workers, sales staff, clients, as well as his superior, insolent, rude and unprofessional
read moreCourt of Appeal Reduced Notice for Short-Term Employee to 4 Months
A colleague drew the recent decision of the Yukon Court of Appeal in Cabott v. Urban Systems Ltd., 2016 YKCA 4 (CanLII) to my attention. Urban Systems Ltd. dismissed 53 year old Ms. Cabott was terminated without cause after 14 months’ employment with the... read moreBC Court of Appeal: Damages for Employee’s Failure to Give Notice Set Aside
To award Consbec damages, the judge was required to first determine the notice Peter should have given Consbec and then determine what damages, if any, Consbec had proven it suffered due to Peter’s failure to give that notice.
read moreMental Illness and Limitation Periods in Wrongful Dismissal Litigation – Headed for the Supreme Court of Canada
The Master took a good, hard look at Ms Aletkina’s claim that she was under a legal disability that suspended the running of the limitations period. The voluminous materials filed on the motion established clearly that Ms. Aletkina does suffer from a mental illness and one that has been described as “severe” by her treating psychiatrist. Nowhere in the volumes of the material is there an opinion that this mental illness renders her under a legal disability. And while it may be true that Ms. Aletkina was slow taking steps related to this litigation, because of her mental health issues, receiving accommodation for health reasons is not the same thing as being unable to appreciate that she had claims that she now wishes to assert.”
read more