 |
| ||||||
Supreme Court of Canada (TevlinGleadle - counsel)
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||
Where We Are |
About Us |
Current Developments |
Our Recent Cases |
|||
700 - 1006 Beach Avenue
(604) 648-2967 (fax)
|
|
Our legal services include:
TevlinGleadle has a blog for discussion of issues relating to employment and wrongful dismissal law.
|
Western Star Pension Class Action Settlement Approved
TevlinGleadle is pleased to announce that the court has approved the settlement and steps are underway to complete.
Further details are available on our "class action" page.
British Columbia Supreme Court
The Honourable Mr. Justice Goepel of the BCSC handed down a signficant decision on March 26, 2009, involving employment law issues.
The defendant car dealership dismissed an apprentice mechanic without alleging cause but because of an honestly held but completely unfounded belief that he may have been involved in dishonest activity on the part of his brother.
The court refused to order "moral damages" following Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, 2008 SCC 39, [2008] 2 S.C.R 362, because at the time of dismissal, the employer's conduct could be explained as, at least, a belief in possible misconduct.
However, the court awarded $100,000 in punitive damages because, when the action was commenced, the defendant embarked on a course of action intended to mislead the plaintiff and eventually the court itself as to the real reasons for dismissal.
The defendant falsely claimed that the dismissal was for lack of work, which would have been a legitimate way to end the apprenticeship contract.
The defendant's conduct after the dismissal was found to be blameworthy pursuant to the principles in Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18, [2002]1 S.C.R. 595.
|
In this wrongful dismissal action we were lawyers for a long service manager of an insurance agency. The issue was a contract that she negotiated with a previous owner (now deceased) where she agreed to work 30 hours per week. Over time she worked longer hours, always doing what was required to ensure the proper operation of the agency. When the agency was sold six years later, the new owner did not inquire about her weekly hours of work. She continued working for the new owner for approximately 10 years working various hours with no complaints from the new owner.
In 2006 the new owner “discovered” she was sometimes scheduling herself to work 4 day weeks rather than 5 day weeks. The new owner then unilaterally reduced her salary by 1/5. At issue was whether the plaintiff’s practice of working longer hours had become a term of her contract such that she was required to work 40 hours or 5 days per week. The trial judge determined that the plaintiff had never received any consideration for agreeing to work 40 hours per week or 5 days per week and that the original contracted 30 hour week contract was all that was legally required.
The employer’s conduct in reducing the plaintiff’s salary unilaterally was held to constitute a wrongful, albiet constructive dismissal. The employer was ordered to pay the plaintiff the salary that had been withheld plus damages based on a 15 month notice period.
|
||
Copyright TevlinGleadle 2008 |
Wrongful Dismissal