Webster v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 549

Herbert Raymond Webster Appellant

v.

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Respondent

Indexed as: Webster v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

File No.: 23085.

1994: October 12; 1994: October 20.

Present: La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia

Appeals ‑‑ Supreme Court of Canada ‑‑ Wrongful dismissal ‑‑ Appellant's death and changes in provincial legislation radically altering situation presented in application for leave to appeal ‑‑ Appeal dismissed without comment on issues, questions of law and principles raised in courts below.

APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (1992), 1992 CanLII 1087 (BC CA), 66 B.C.L.R. (2d) 129, 91 D.L.R. (4th) 272, 13 B.C.A.C. 84, 24 W.A.C. 84, 42 C.C.E.L. 105, allowing the respondent's appeal and dismissing the appellant's cross‑appeal from a judgment of Maczko J. (1990), 1990 CanLII 290 (BC SC), 31 C.C.E.L. 224, awarding the appellant damages for wrongful dismissal. Appeal dismissed.

John Fairburn, for the appellant.

Linda A. Loo, Q.C., and Glenn A. Urquhart, for the respondent.

The following is the judgment delivered by

The Court -- The appellant in this appeal unfortunately died after leave was granted by the Court. This, coupled with the passage of legislation which compels the payment of a death benefit amounting to $161,325, have radically altered the situation which was presented in the application for leave to appeal. The death benefit would not have been payable if any pension benefits had been paid to the appellant. The death benefit amounts to basically the same sum which was awarded by the trial court for loss of the appellant's pension benefit when interest payable to Webster is taken into account. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the result arrived at by the British Columbia Court of Appeal. We specifically refrain from commenting upon the issues, questions of law, and principles raised in the courts below. These issues, particularly what significance should be assigned to pensions in determining what constitutes reasonable notice of termination of employment, we must leave for another occasion when all the relevant factors and legislation have been considered by the courts below.

The appeal is therefore dismissed. In these special circumstances there should be no costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Solicitors for the appellant: Mulholland Webster, Richmond, British Columbia.

Solicitors for the respondent: Singleton Urquhart Macdonald, Vancouver.