Leonard E. Seidman

The respondent, a former employee of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), brought an action against the Crown for damages resulting from inadequate air quality at the ICAO headquarters leased by the Crown.

The Crown brought a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the claim fell within labour relations governed by the ICAO Service Code and that ICAO's immunity extended to the Crown.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that the essential character of the dispute was an extra-contractual civil liability claim against a third party, not a labour dispute.

The Court found that ICAO's immunity did not transfer to the Crown and the Superior Court had jurisdiction to hear the claim.

The appellant building owner appealed the dismissal of its declinatory exception in an action by a former employee of an international organization who alleged injury from inadequate air quality in the building where he worked.

The Supreme Court held that the claim sounded in extra-contractual civil liability against the owner for building maintenance and failure to warn, not in labour relations or the internal operations of the international organization.

The immunity and inviolability attaching to the organization did not transfer to the owner, and any evidentiary difficulties arising from access to the premises were matters for trial rather than jurisdiction.

The appeal was dismissed and the matter was left to proceed in the Quebec Superior Court on its merits.

The appellant challenged a Quebec Court of Appeal decision upholding dismissal of his action for damages after his employer eliminated his regional manager role during restructuring and offered him management of a single underperforming branch without a guaranteed base salary.

The Supreme Court held that under Quebec civil law, constructive dismissal occurs where an employer unilaterally imposes substantial changes to the essential terms of employment, assessed objectively from the standpoint of a reasonable person at the time of the offer.

The Court found the offer constituted a significant demotion and materially undermined the employee's financial security, and that post-offer sales evidence was irrelevant because those results were not reasonably foreseeable when the offer was made.

The appeal was allowed and one year's remuneration in lieu of notice was fixed at $150,000, with interest, additional indemnity and costs.