Blog
Vulnerable employee fried after one year of employment entitled to 8 months’ notice
The parties disagreed with respect to the amount of reasonable notice was required. The Court found that in light of his experience, age and length of employment, the applicable notice period is five months. The Plaintiff argued that that he was vulnerable at the time of his firing given his medical condition, and that should be taken into account to increase the notice period (Ostrow v. Abacus Management Corporation Mergers and Acquisitions, 2014 BCSC 938 (CanLII)). The Court accepted that and increased the notice by an addition 3 months, for a total of 8 months.
read moreEmployer Claimed Employees Stole Computer and Software – Employer Not Entitled To Deduct from Wages
The employer was not entitled to deduct amounts from wages because “respondent’s employment contracts requiring them to return company property on request constituted a written authorization” under the Ontario Employment Standards Act. The employer’s defence did not raise a genuine issue requiring trial.
read moreHelicopter Mechanic entitled to 6 months’ notice – Dismissal was “over-reaction to a one-off event”
Saliken v. Alpine Aerotech Limited Partnership, 2016 BCSC 832 (CanLII) This case illustrates the importance of investigating before terminating and allowing a terminated employee opportunity to consider the terms of a release. The plaintiff was a 54 year... read moreDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS ENTITLED TO 26 MONTHS NOTICE
The trial court noted: “Employment relationships exist on a continuum; with the employer/employee relationship, at one end of the continuum, and independent contractors at the other end. Between those two points, lies a third intermediate category of relationship, now termed dependant contractors: McKee v. Reid’s Heritage Home Limited, 2009 ONCA 916 (CanLII) ….” In case of the Keenans, the court concluded that the “evidence overwhelmingly favours the conclusion that the plaintiffs were dependent contactors, and, as such, entitled to reasonable notice of termination, and I so find.” The court concluded that 26 months was reasonable notice.
read moreDeletion of Company Files not cause for Dismissal – Double Costs Against Employer
… the defendant urged the court to find the plaintiff deleted the files because of her dislike of Marty and her feelings of anger and jealousy. I have already found that the plaintiff’s frustration and upset over Marty’s uncensored conduct was one factor that led her to delete the files. However, there were other reasons for her decision; most importantly her belief Penta no longer needed the files because Marty had quit his job with Penta and the Richmond Street projects were to be completed by Marty through Oaktree. Absent her feelings about Marty, I expect the plaintiff may still have deleted the files, but perhaps less expeditiously, given her proactive approach to the organization of files on the server.
read moreAssessment of Damages – Not an Exact Science
“[75] Based on the conduct of the parties and the risks apparent in the various compensation options, in my view it would be reasonable to use as an estimate of loss Mr. Cuesta’s average earnings per month based on the 12 months immediately before his notice of termination on October 24, 2013. That period incorporates eight months of bountiful work and four months on the bench. Wages during that 12 month period come to approximately $115,000 or $9,583 per month. Mr. Cuesta is entitled to eight months at that salary or about $76,000 plus benefits for six and one-half months (eight months less benefits for one and one-half months already paid by the employer).”
read moreBC Human Rights Tribunal Without Jurisdiction to Address Offensive Comments – Not Discrimination Regarding Employment
Applying those principles to the case at bar, the Tribunal certainly has jurisdiction in relation to an allegation that a person has forced the complainant, expressly or otherwise, to endure harassment at work. It had jurisdiction to address the response of the complainant’s employer to his complaint. It does not, however, have jurisdiction to address a complaint made against one who is rude, insulting or insufferable but who is not in a position to force the complainant to endure that conduct as a condition of his employment.” (Emphasis added)
read moreTerm Contracts – The Proof is in the Pudding
The Court noted that there is a greater flexibility in the admissibility of evidence to prove the terms of the contract. There was little in the way of documents to prove the terms of the contract. Burke J. turned to the surrounding circumstances, including, in particular, the fact that the franchise agreement required a Marriott trained manager, something the principals lacked. The employee was a former manager with Marriott and trained in its brand. The Court found: “Marriott had determined Hollypark was not qualified to operate the Hotel without additional training and support. This …confirms Ms. James’ testimony that Mr. Dhillon was advised Marriott had determined Hollypark was not qualified to operate the hotel.”
read moreWilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. – Update
The Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal of Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. on January 19, 2016. This case concerns whether without-cause dismissals are “unjust” under the Canada Labour Code. The appeal is of a Federal Court of Appeal decision that... read moreGhomeshi Acquittal – The Power of The Rule of Law
The Court carefully considered and weighed the evidence. In the case of the three complainants, the Court found that they were lacking in honesty, sincerity and accuracy. Indeed, the Court concluded: “The evidence of each complainant suffered not just from inconsistencies and questionable behaviour, but was tainted by outright deception.” In the Court’s view, “the volume of serious deficiencies in the evidence leaves the Court with a reasonable doubt.” Accordingly, the Court dismissed the charges and acquitted Mr. Ghomeshi. Judging from the press coverage as the trial unfolded, this was not unexpected.
read more