4 total
Long‑term hospitality manager awarded 20 months’ notice after wrongful dismissal.
The plaintiff, a long‑term hospitality employee with approximately nineteen and a half years of service, brought an action for wrongful dismissal after being terminated following the purchase of a minority interest in a separate bar.
The employer alleged abandonment of employment, conflict of interest, dishonesty, intoxicated calls to the employer, and after‑acquired cause including drinking on duty and mismanagement of inventory.
The court found the plaintiff had not abandoned his employment and that the employer effectively terminated him by presenting a letter demanding resignation and release.
The court rejected the alleged just cause and after‑acquired cause allegations, finding the evidence insufficient and the bars were not competing businesses.
Applying common law notice principles, the court awarded twenty months’ reasonable notice, subject to mitigation.
Tribunal permits factual amendments to application but denies adding condominium board members as personal respondents.
The applicant filed Requests for an Order During Proceedings (RFOPs) seeking to amend his human rights application and to add and remove certain respondents.
The respondents consented to some changes but opposed the addition of legal submissions and certain personal respondents.
The Tribunal allowed the factual amendments but excluded the legal submissions, noting they are more appropriate for closing arguments.
Applying the Smyth and Persaud factors, the Tribunal denied the request to add the Condominium Board of Directors as it is not a legal entity, and declined to add individual board members as personal respondents because the Condominium Corporation acknowledged vicarious liability for their actions.
Refusal to accept reinstatement defeated wrongful dismissal damages.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action after the trial judge held that he failed to mitigate his damages by refusing an offer to return to the same position, at the same location, salary, duties, and benefits, shortly after a constructive dismissal.
The appeal argued that the trial judge misapplied the governing mitigation principles and wrongly found no workplace acrimony sufficient to make re-employment unreasonable.
The court held that the trial judge properly applied the framework from the leading Supreme Court authorities, made factual and credibility findings open on the record, and reasonably concluded that a reasonable person would have accepted the return-to-work offer.
The appeal was dismissed and appeal costs were fixed in favour of the respondent.
Employee who refused reinstatement failed to mitigate damages after constructive dismissal.
An employee with 33 years of service brought a wrongful dismissal action after being laid off and subsequently refusing the employer’s offer to return to work.
The court accepted that the layoff constituted constructive dismissal and that the reasonable notice period would have been 24 months.
However, applying Evans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31, the court held that a reasonable person would have accepted the employer’s prompt offer of reinstatement because the workplace would not have been hostile or humiliating.
The employee therefore failed to mitigate damages by refusing to return.
The claim for damages in lieu of notice and moral damages was dismissed.
