Court File and Parties
CITATION: Rouse v. Drake, 2018 ONSC 6166
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-18-26-00 DATE: 20181015
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
SACHS, HORKINS, THORBURN JJ.
BETWEEN:
SUSAN ROUSE
Respondent
– and –
DR. THOMAS G. DRAKE and DR. DAVID H. DRAKE, Carrying on Business as North Bruce Dental Office
Appellants
J. Tamming, for the Respondent
A. Thomson, for the Appellants
HEARD at Brampton: October 15, 2018
Oral Reasons for Judgment
SACHS J. (Orally)
[1] The basis for this appeal is captured in paragraph 20 of the Appellants’ factum, which reads as follows:
Although the learned Trial Judge refers in his Reasons at paragraph 82 to the decision of McKinley v. B.C. Tell, 2001 SCC 38, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 161, he fails to provide any analysis of how, having found that the Plaintiff (Defendant) (sic) had interfered with the security camera, that behavior did not constitute dishonesty or why, if it was dishonest, it was not justification for termination without notice.
According to the Appellants, this constituted an error in law. We disagree. A review of the trial judge’s reasons as a whole makes it clear that the trial judge did conduct an analysis as to why the Plaintiff’s interference with the security camera did not constitute dishonest behaviour that justified termination.
[2] In paragraph 93 the trial judge accepts that the Plaintiff did deliberately manipulate the security camera in the face of the clear evidence before him that the Plaintiff was bothered by the presence of the security cameras.
[3] In paragraph 98 the trial judge makes an explicit finding that the Plaintiff did not engage in any dishonest behaviour. In making this finding the trial judge rejected the suggestion by the Defendants that the plaintiff engaged in any behaviour designed to help her falsify her work hours.
[4] In paragraph 106 the trial judge found that there was “no reliable evidence that [the Plaintiff] falsified her work hours or claimed unjustified hours of work”. Having made these findings, the trial judge correctly concluded that the Plaintiff’s manipulation of the security camera would not, in and of itself, constitute just cause for dismissal.
[5] For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.
[6] “For reasons given orally by Sachs J. this appeal is dismissed. The Plaintiff/Respondent requests partial indemnity costs of this appeal fixed in the amount $6,203.70 all inclusive. The Appellants do not oppose this request. It is so ordered.”
Sachs J.
I agree _______________________________
Horkins J.
I agree _______________________________
Thorburn J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 15, 2018
Date of Release:
CITATION: Rouse v. Drake, 2018 ONSC 6166
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-18-26-00 DATE: 20181015
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
SACHS, HORKINS, THORBURN JJ.
BETWEEN:
SUSAN ROUSE
Respondent
– and –
DR. THOMAS G. DRAKE and DR. DAVID H. DRAKE, Carrying on Business as North Bruce Dental Office
Appellants
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Sachs J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 15, 2018
Date of Release: