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.
