Craig R. Lawrence

The appellant employer appealed a wrongful dismissal judgment awarding the respondent damages based on a 17-month notice period.

The employer argued the respondent failed to mitigate by refusing an offer of re-employment at approximately 20% lower salary.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that an employee is not obliged to accept re-employment that risks waiver of the wrongful dismissal claim without clear confirmation that acceptance would be without prejudice to the original claim.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the respondent college issuing and extending a Notice of Trespass against him.

The application was brought almost three years after the second notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for delay, finding the delay was lengthy, unexplained, and caused prejudice to the respondent.

The plaintiff, Roy Fillmore, was terminated from his employment after 19 years and 3 months and commenced an action for wrongful dismissal.

Both parties agreed to proceed by way of a motion for summary judgment to determine two issues: the amount of common law reasonable notice and whether the plaintiff's damages should be reduced due to an alleged failure to mitigate.

The court determined a reasonable notice period of 17 months.

It also found that the plaintiff did not fail to mitigate by refusing a demotion to a lower-paying, permanent position with the same employer, as this was not an offer to work through the notice period and could have prejudiced his rights.

Police chiefs brought an application under s. 50 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 to enforce arbitration awards ordering a police services board to pay contractual entitlements following the dissolution of a regional police service.

The respondent argued the Arbitration Act did not apply because the arbitration was conducted pursuant to the Police Services Act and that enforcement should be stayed due to a pending judicial review application.

The court held that disputes over remuneration and working conditions of a chief and deputy chief fall outside Part VIII of the Police Services Act, meaning the statutory exclusion of the Arbitration Act did not apply.

Because none of the statutory grounds in s. 50(3) for refusing enforcement were present, the court was required to enforce the awards.

Judgment was therefore granted enforcing the arbitral awards.