William R. Gale

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion seeking damages for an unpaid 2016 fiscal bonus, bad faith, and punitive damages following the termination of his employment.

The plaintiff argued the bonus plan was objective and non-discretionary, while the defendant employer maintained it was discretionary and subject to board approval.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that material facts were in dispute regarding the nature of the bonus plan, alleged performance issues, and bad faith.

The court concluded that a fair and just determination required a full evidentiary record with viva voce evidence and credibility assessments at trial.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion arising from a without-cause dismissal after 16 years of service as a specialized national account sales representative in the corrugated packaging and recycling industry.

Applying the reasonable notice factors, the court fixed notice at 16 months, emphasizing the employee’s age, lengthy service, specialized role, and the limited availability of comparable employment in a narrow industry.

The court rejected a claim for an enhanced 2012 bonus based on alleged unilateral changes to bonus criteria, but held that the bonus plan was an integral part of compensation during the notice period and awarded damages for bonus, group insurance benefits, pension contributions, and car allowance.

The court also rejected the employer’s mitigation defence and granted summary judgment for $131,515.35.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of colour, disability, and age, and later amended to include family status.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations were based on interpersonal conflicts and speculation, and she failed to point to any evidence that could establish a link between the termination of her employment and any of the alleged Code grounds.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The appellant lawyer hired the respondent as a junior associate.

After a few months, the respondent delivered a highly critical letter accusing the appellant of dishonesty and incompetence, leading to her summary dismissal.

The trial judge found the letter constituted just cause for termination.

The Divisional Court reversed, finding the trial judge failed to apply the contextual approach mandated by McKinley v. BC Tel.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the trial judgment, holding that the trial judge had properly examined the circumstances and nature of the conduct, and his factual findings were entitled to deference.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging employment discrimination sought to amend her Application through three separate requests.

The Tribunal granted the first request to add the ground of family status and further disability allegations, as it was made early with no prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal denied the second request to add marital status and association grounds because the applicant failed to link them to any allegations.

The third request, which sought to add extensive new allegations involving a previous employer and older incidents, was denied due to significant unexplained delay and the resulting unfair expansion of the Application's scope.

The Divisional Court issued a supplementary endorsement fixing the costs of the appeal.

The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant $10,000 inclusive of disbursements, plus HST.

The court also granted the parties leave to provide written submissions on whether the trial judge's award of costs of the trial should be varied.

The appellant, a junior lawyer, was summarily dismissed by her employer after writing a highly critical letter regarding office administration and compensation, which included an accusation of dishonesty and negligence.

The trial judge found the letter constituted insolence justifying summary dismissal.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error by failing to apply the contextual approach mandated by McKinley v. BC Tel.

Applying the contextual approach, the Court found the single incident of harsh communication did not irreparably destroy the employment relationship.

The appeal was allowed and damages in lieu of reasonable notice were awarded.

In an interim decision regarding the admissibility of a statement taken during an internal fraud investigation, the union objected to the employer questioning the investigator about the statement.

The union argued the statement was inadmissible because the maker was denied union representation and Charter rights.

The arbitrator declined to hold a voir dire or rule the statement inadmissible at this stage, instead allowing the employer to question the investigator and enter the statement into evidence, leaving the determination of its weight to the end of the case.

In an arbitration regarding the discharge of a claims adjudicator for alleged fraud, the employer sought to introduce a recorded statement from a co-conspirator without calling the maker as a witness.

The union objected on the grounds of hearsay.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled the statement inadmissible, finding it was neither necessary, as the maker was available to testify, nor reliable, as it was a repudiated confession from an interested party.

The defendants appealed a trial judgment awarding the plaintiff one year's salary for wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge had found the plaintiff's employment contract, which limited notice to three months, unenforceable due to misrepresentations by the defendants.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of wrongful dismissal but overturned the finding that the contract was unenforceable, concluding there was no evidence to support the claims of misrepresentation regarding the plaintiff's job description or a failure to invest by the defendants.

The Court varied the judgment, limiting the plaintiff's damages to the three months' salary stipulated in the employment contract.