The appellant employee was placed on a temporary unpaid layoff and later claimed constructive dismissal.
The motion judge granted summary judgment to the employer, finding the employee had acquiesced to the layoff.
On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the order, holding that the motion judge erred in law by finding acquiescence without first analyzing the terms of the employment contract to determine if the employer had the right to lay off the employee, as required by the Supreme Court's two-step test in Potter.
