Ronald Brent Raby

The respondent, an experienced in-house corporate counsel, was terminated without cause after 18 months of employment.

Upon termination, he was offered a severance package of three months' salary in exchange for signing a release.

He signed the release immediately and received the funds.

He later sued for wrongful dismissal, arguing the release was unconscionable.

The trial judge set aside the release based on a breach of good faith.

The Court of Appeal allowed the employer's appeal, finding the trial judge erred in applying the law of bad faith discharge instead of unconscionability.

Applying the four-part test for unconscionability, the Court held the transaction was not grossly unfair, the respondent did not lack legal advice, there was no overwhelming imbalance in bargaining power, and the employer did not take advantage of his vulnerability.

The action was dismissed.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee $28,000 for wrongful dismissal, representing seven months' notice including Wallace damages.

The employer argued it had just cause to terminate the employee for dishonesty and breach of policy, and challenged the Wallace damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's conclusion that the employer failed to prove dishonesty.

The Court also upheld the Wallace damages, noting the employer's blatant disregard for the employee by terminating her two weeks before she was to give birth.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay retroactive and ongoing spousal support of $1,100 per month.

He argued the trial judge erred in imputing income, setting the quantum, and making the award retroactive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellant continued to have significant means despite transferring assets to his children, and that the respondent had a clear need for support.

The retroactive award was justified due to the appellant's failure to fully disclose his finances and his initial claim that the parties were merely in an employer/employee relationship.