Robert Mark Fletcher

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action, claiming constructive dismissal due to a temporary layoff after 23 years of employment.

The court found that the temporary layoff constituted constructive dismissal as there was no contractual right for the employer to implement such a layoff.

However, the court also found that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by refusing a bona fide recall offer from the employer, which included assurances of no reprisals and substantially similar terms of employment.

The plaintiff's subjective belief of embarrassment or degradation was not objectively supported.

Consequently, the plaintiff's damages were limited to the period between the layoff and the recall offer.

The defendant employer brought a motion to stay the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action, arguing the dispute fell within the scope of an arbitration clause in the employment agreement.

The plaintiff opposed the stay, arguing the arbitration clause was void for lack of consideration and that subsequent amendments to the agreement conferred exclusive jurisdiction to the courts.

Applying the competence-competence principle, the court found it was arguable that the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause and that the plaintiff had not established a clear case of invalidity.

The motion for a stay of proceedings was granted, leaving the jurisdictional challenge to be resolved first by the arbitrator.

Employee wrongful dismissal action arising from post-disability return-to-work restructuring, disciplinary measures, and subsequent long-term disability leave.

The court found the employee was constructively dismissed when the employer unilaterally demoted him, altered his reporting structure, removed supervisory and budgetary responsibilities, and reduced his role to a more clerical function.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded 18 months' notice, less ESA minimums already paid, and rejected claims for moral damages, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and punitive damages.

The court also rejected the employer's frustration and proportional reduction defences, and held the constructive dismissal claim was not statute-barred.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate his disability and termination of employment.

He had previously filed a civil action for wrongful dismissal based on virtually identical facts, alleging breaches of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) of the Code bars an application where a civil proceeding seeking remedies for the same alleged Code infringement has been commenced.

The application was dismissed as barred by section 34(11).