Tag: constructive dismissal

Categories
Wrongful Dismissal/Termination

Supreme Court of Canada to Decide Whether a Terminated Employee Was Entitled to a $1.1M Bonus

The Supreme Court of Canada is expected to issue a decision in the coming months that will clarify whether a constructively dismissed employee was entitled to the bonus he would have received during his reasonable notice period.

The lower court decision on appeal awarded the employee almost $1.1 million as part of the employer’s incentive plan.

What Happened?

The employee was a chemist who has worked in the omega-3 fish oil industry for decades. He worked for the employer (or its predecessors) from January 1997 to June 2011.

In 1997, the employee started in the position of operations manager. He became a senior manager in 2001; and became vice-president of various departments from 2006 to 2009.

In early 2007, the employer created a long-term incentive plan. Under the plan, 2% of the employer’s value created on the sale or public offering of the company in excess of $100 million would be distributed among the executives who were party to the incentive plan. The plan was intended to be an incentive and a retention tool. During his employment, the employee was entitled to the plan.

Under the terms of the plan, if the employer company was sold during the period of time that the employee was employed by it, he was entitled to receive a portion of the sale proceeds based on the formula contained in the plan.  

The plan also provided that if the employee was not employed by the company at the time of the sale he would not be entitled to share in the proceeds, whether he resigned or was wrongfully dismissed. 

After a change in management and a significant change and reduction of his duties, the employee resigned on June 24, 2011.

On May 18, 2012, the employer announced it had been purchased by another company. On July 19, 2012, the completion of the acquisition was announced. Thetotal enterprise value of the sale was $540 million.

The employee sued the employer for wrongful dismissal seeking damages for breach of his employment contract, including the loss of the long term incentive plan.

Lower Court Decision

The hearing judge found that the employee had been constructively dismissed and was entitled to 15 months’ notice. The sale of the employer took place during that 15-month period. 

The hearing judge found that despite the employee not being employed with the company at the time of the sale, he was still entitled to recover under the long term incentive plan because the notice period overlapped with the sale of the company.

As a result, the hearing judge found that had the employee been employed with the company at the time of the sale he would have been entitled to receive approximately $1.1 million under the plan and so ordered.

The employer appealed the decision.

Court of Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal found that the hearing judge did not err in finding that the employee had been constructively dismissed, nor did he err in finding that the reasonable notice period was 15 months. However, the majority of the court found that he erred in awarding damages pursuant to the long term incentive plan. 

The majority of the court found that the clause stating that the employee was not entitled to the share of the proceeds if he was not employed by the company at the time of the sale, whether through resignation or was wrongful dismissal, precluded any such payment.  

As a result, the court allowed the appeal in part. It upheld the finding of constructive dismissal and 15 months reasonable notice, but set aside the $1.1 million awarded under the long term incentive plan. 

However, the judge in dissent would have confirmed the amount awarded by the trial judge related to the plan. The dissenting judge stated that though the plan itself prevented recovery under that agreement, the employment contract had an implied duty of honesty and good faith and it was the employer’s dishonesty which had resulted in the employee’s constructive dismissal. 

The dissenting judge would have dismissed the appeal on the issue of the long term incentive plan, finding that it was within the reasonable contemplation of the parties that if the employee was constructively dismissed he would be entitled to the payment under the plan.

The employee appealed the decision.

Supreme Court of Canada Decision

The Supreme Court of Canada granted the employee leave to appeal and heard arguments for the appeal in October 2019. The decision is expected in 2020.

Get Advice

At Bader LLP, our Mississauga employment lawyers have been representing non-unionized employees in workplace disputes since 1999. We know that such disputes can be very stressful and can get emotional quickly. We seek to simplify the law so that you understand your options and make informed decisions. We leverage our extensive experience advising employers to provide insightful guidance to employees who are facing challenging circumstances at work. We work hard to protect you.

If you have questions about unfair practices in the workplace, wrongful dismissal, or any other employment matter, contact the Mississauga employment lawyers at Bader Law. Our knowledgeable employment lawyers can counsel you on your rights, advise you on your options, and help you create a plan for moving forward. We represent employees in Mississauga and areas west of Toronto. Contact us online or at (289) 652-9092 to learn how we can help.

Categories
Wrongful Dismissal/Termination

Employee Barred from Pursuing Lawsuit for Chronic Mental Stress Caused by Harassment and Bullying

A recent Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision took away an employee’s right to sue for constructive dismissal because the fundamental nature of her action was a claim for injury resulting from harassment and bullying in the workplace.

What Happened?

The employee began working for the employer in its housekeeping department in May 2015. In May 2016, she was promoted to the position of supervisor. 

The employee resigned her position with the employer in February 2018 claiming constructive dismissal as a result of harassment and bullying in the workplace. In consultation with her doctors, she claimed she was unable to return to work due to the harassment, and her fragile mental state resulting from the harassment and bullying to which she was subjected in the workplace. 

She filed a Statement of Claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on April 2, 2018 claiming damages for constructive dismissal, bullying, harassment and/or a poisoned work environment pursuant to the Occupational Health and Safety Act (the “OHSA”), the tort of harassment, as well as punitive, aggravated and/or moral damages. 

In particular, the employee claimed that she “was forced to resign from her position with [the employer] due to the harassment, bullying and abuse she endured during the course of her employment and the resulting mental distress she experienced and continues to experience.” She pled further that the claim “relates to the harassment and bullying that [she] experienced as a result of a toxic work environment created by [the employer’s] employees and management and her subsequent constructive dismissal.”

The employer filed an application seeking a declaration that the employee’s right of action against it was barred by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (the “WSIA”).

Issue

The issue was whether the employee’s right of action was taken away pursuant to the WSIA. 

Parties’ Positions

The employer submitted that the employee’s Statement of Claim was effectively a claim for chronic mental stress under the WSIA and thus her right of action was removed in relation to her action for constructive dismissal, and for damages for mental stress, aggravated, moral and punitive damages, and for breach of the OHSA for bullying, harassment, the creation of a poisoned work environment and/or the tort of harassment. 

The employee submitted that a worker’s right to claim for damages in a civil action is taken away by the WSIA only in respect of the damages that are compensable under the WSIA and one must look at the three causes of action to determine whether they are inextricably linked to a work accident. 

The Decision

The tribunal explained that it was not being asked to make a determination as to whether the employee was subjected to harassment and bullying in the manner she claimed or whether she was injured as a result. It was only to determine whether the circumstances she alleged brought her claim within the scope of the WSIA and thereby removed her right to bring a civil action against the employer.

The tribunal stated that it has generally found that the right to bring an action for wrongful dismissal has not been removed by the WSIA. Rather, it is only in the exceptional case that this is not so, where the circumstances of the wrongful dismissal claim are inextricably linked to the work injury. 

In this case, the tribunal found that the exception applied. It found that the employee’s action against the employer was not for wrongful dismissal in the usual sense, but rather was for constructive dismissal, meaning her employment was effectively terminated by the harassing and bullying conduct of co-workers and management which caused her mental distress to such a degree that she was forced to take sick leave and ultimately to resign. It found that such facts were inextricably linked to a claim for injury governed by the terms of section 13(4) of the WSIA. 

In other words, it found that the employee’s Statement of Claim was, in essence, a claim for injury resulting from alleged workplace harassment and bullying and thus fell within the scope of section 13(4) to provide for entitlement for chronic mental stress arising out of, and in the course of, the employee’s employment. Additionally, the tribunal found that the other remedies sought by the employee were also claimed on the same facts of harassment and bullying in the workplace. 

As a result, the tribunal found the employee’s right of action was taken away by the WSIA. However, pursuant to section 31(4) of the WSIA, the employee could file a claim for benefits within six months of the decision.

Get Advice

At Campbell Bader LLP, our Mississauga employment lawyers have been representing non-unionized employees in workplace disputes since 1999. We know that such disputes can be very stressful and can get emotional quickly. We seek to simplify the law so that you understand your options and make informed decisions. We leverage our extensive experience advising employers to provide insightful guidance to employees who are facing challenging circumstances at work. We work hard to protect you.

If you have questions about unfair practices in the workplace, wrongful dismissal, or any other employment matter, contact the Mississauga employment lawyers at Campbell Bader LLP. Our knowledgeable employment lawyers can counsel you on your rights, advise you on your options, and help you create a plan for moving forward. We represent employees in Mississauga and areas west of Toronto. Contact us online or at 905-828-2247 to learn how we can help.

Categories
Wrongful Dismissal/Termination

Employee Awarded Over $1 Million in Damages for Constructive Dismissal Under Fixed-Term Agreement

In a recent Ontario case, an employee who was constructively dismissed under a fixed-term agreement was awarded over a million dollars in damages.

What Happened?

The employee was a third generation owner of a funeral home when, in 2012, he agreed to sell his shares to the employer corporation, a company controlled by two brothers. 

It was a term of the share purchase agreement that the employee would enter into a transitional consulting services agreement (the “agreement”) by which he would continue in the employ of the funeral home for a fixed-term of ten years. The agreement provided that the employee would work as general manager of the funeral home and be paid $100,000 per year with a salary review on an annual basis to reflect cost of living increases, as well as sales commissions.

However, not long after the transfer of ownership, unhappy differences arose between the employee and the brothers. Within 11 months, the employee had gone on medical leave due to workplace stress he said was induced largely by the actions of one of the brothers. 

Among the main issues, were, firstly, the hours the employee was expected to be spending on funeral-related work as opposed to customer relations. Secondly, was the use of the company vehicle and gas card for personal purposes. The third issue was the length of time over which the employee would be paid the commission of 5% on pre-paid funerals. Fourthly, at issue was whether the commission of 65% of the marketing allowance was only for in-house pre-arranged funeral packages specifically arranged by the employee or for all in-house packages, regardless of who arranged them.

After his leave, he was unable to return to work and claimed to have been constructively dismissed. He sought damages for breach of the agreement, intentional infliction of mental suffering and discrimination prohibited by the Ontario Human Rights Code. Essentially, the employee claimed that the brothers’ conduct was designed to cause him to leave his employment, and that much of the conduct took place when he was on leave for stress-related illness that the brothers knew would be exacerbated by their conduct.

The brothers claimed that none of their conduct was the cause of the employee leaving his employment. They stated that the employee found himself ill-suited to the role of employee and suffered from seller’s remorse. They argued that the employee orchestrated much of the discord in an effort to induce them to breach the agreement and fire him in hopes that he would reap the benefits of the contract without having to work.

The Decision

After reviewing the behaviour of both parties, the court concluded that neither the brothers nor the employee were blameless for the falling out that occurred. However, the court found that over the course of several months before the employee’s leave, one of the brothers:

(1) Improperly terminated the employee’s use of the company vehicle; 

(2) Without notice to the employee, recruited an employee who was subordinate to him to track his time at the funeral home; 

(3) Did not pay the employee commissions to which he was rightfully entitled; 

(4) Removed the employee’s photograph from the funeral home; and 

(5) Without notice to the employee and without seeking any explanation from him, changed the locks to the funeral home. 

The court found that all these actions amounted to a course of conduct which, in light of all the circumstances, would lead a reasonable person in the employee’s position to conclude that the brothers no longer intended to be bound by the terms of the agreement. As a result, the court found that the employee had been constructively dismissed.

The court, however, dismissed the employee’s claim of intentional infliction of mental suffering and discrimination prohibited by the OntarioHuman Rights Code.

Damages 

When assessing damages, the court stated:

“In the absence of an enforceable contractual provision stipulating a fixed term of notice, or any other provision to the contrary, a fixed term employment contract obligates an employer to pay an employee to the end of the term, and that obligation will not be subject to mitigation […]. Accordingly, the [employee] is entitled to the compensation and benefits he would have received had the contract been honoured. […] It is appropriate to […] simply calculate the loss per year and multiply it by the 9 years remaining on the contract when the [employee] ceased work.”

After reviewing the loss of salary, which came to $100,000 per year for nine years, or $900,000, and other lost benefits over the course of nine years under the agreement, the court awarded damages to the employee in the amount of just over $1,274,000.

Get Advice

At Campbell Bader LLP, our Mississauga employment lawyers have been representing non-unionized employees in workplace disputes since 1999. We know that such disputes can be very stressful and can get emotional quickly. We seek to simplify the law so that you understand your options and make informed decisions. We leverage our extensive experience advising employers to provide insightful guidance to employees who are facing challenging circumstances at work. We work hard to protect you.

If you have questions about unfair practices in the workplace, wrongful dismissal, or any other employment matter, contact the Mississauga employment lawyers at Campbell Bader LLP. Our knowledgeable employment lawyers can counsel you on your rights, advise you on your options, and help you create a plan for moving forward. We represent employees in Mississauga and areas west of Toronto. Contact us online or at 905-828-2247 to learn how we can help.

Categories
Wrongful Dismissal/Termination

When Is a Temporary Lay-Off Actually Constructive Dismissal?

A recent Ontario case considered an employee’s claim that a temporary lay-off was in fact constructive dismissal, even after he refused a call back to work.

What Happened?

The employer was engaged in emergency restoration and remediation work for residential, commercial, industrial, and municipal clients. The employee, aged 53, began working for the employer in 1992 as a carpenter. He was later promoted and, at the time of the lay-off, his position was a health and safety training specialist.

In 2014, the employer experienced a significant decrease in its business. In January 2015, it permanently laid off 22 employees, with severance packages. The employer stated that it had decided which employees to temporarily lay off based on their years of service, skillsets and experience and it planned on recalling them. The employee knew about the permanent and temporary layoffs.

On October 15, 2015, the employer temporarily laid off the employee. On the same day, the employer’s vice-president of operations met with the employee and told him that because of the decrease in business, he would be temporarily laid off and recalled back to work as soon as possible when business improved.

The employee’s lay-off letter stated that the employer would pay 100% of the employee’s group benefits during the temporary layoff period and asked him to keep the employer informed about his ongoing availability and contact information so that it could recall him as soon as possible. The letter also asked him to return all of the company’s tools and equipment, including the company car which he would not use while on a temporary lay-off.

After the meeting, the employee emailed the vice-president, stating “I am available every day as always”. On October 19, 2015, the employee emailed again stating “I am available for work every day this week.”

On October 27, 2015, the employee, through his counsel, advised the employer that he considered his temporary lay-off to be a constructive dismissal. Counsel for the employer replied that there was a possibility that the employee would be recalled to work and that he would update him by November 9, 2015. The employee’s counsel immediately replied by email advising that the employee felt that the relationship had broken down and that he would not return to work but would start an action against the employer.

On November 10, 2015, the employer’s counsel sent a letter to counsel recalling the employee to “active employment”.

On November 12, 2015, the employer’s counsel emailed asking if the employee would return to work. Counsel replied that he would not. No inquiries with respect to the recall were made.

The employee alleges that the employer’s offer “was a sham made only in response to his litigation and not a bona fide attempt to return him to work.” He believed that it would have been embarrassing and degrading to return to work.

As a result, the employee brought a motion for summary judgment of his action for wrongful dismissal. He claimed he was constructively dismissed by reason of a lay-off after 23 years of employment. He argued that there was no employment term giving the employer the right to temporarily lay him off and that he did not consent to the lay-off. The employee also claimed that the employer failed to provide him with work and compensation in violation of the fundamental terms of employment.

The employer alleged that the employee agreed to his lay-off by providing his availability to work on October 15 and 19, 2015. The employer denied he was wrongfully dismissed and submitted in the alternative that if the employee was constructively dismissed, he failed to mitigate his damages by refusing a recall to his employment.

The Issues

The main issues were whether the employee was constructively dismissed when he was laid off and, if so, whether the employee made reasonable efforts to mitigate his damages.

The Decision

At the outset, the court concluded that the employee had been constructively dismissed. It did not find that, by providing his availability to work, the employee agreed to the lay-off or that it was a term of the employee’s employment that the employer could lay him off temporarily. The court stated:

“[The employee’]s advice to [the employer] on his availability for recall cannot be construed as evidence of his agreement to change such a significant term of employment. Similarly, neither does his knowledge and understanding of [the employer]’s business difficulties have the effect of altering such a significant term of employment.”

The court found that the employee was therefore constructively dismissed on October 15, 2015 and that he was consequently entitled to be paid damages for the employer’s failure to provide him with reasonable notice of his termination of employment, subject to his obligation to mitigate his damages.

The employer did not allege that the employee’s job search efforts were insufficient, but rather that he failed to mitigate his damages when he refused the employer’s offer to be recalled to work. The employee submitted that one reason for refusing the offer of re-employment was because it would be too embarrassing and degrading for him to return to work, but gave no further evidence in this regard.

After reviewing the evidence and testimony, the court stated:

“I must consider the factors set out in the Evan’s case and the inquiry about “whether a reasonably objective individual in his circumstances would not have concluded that returning to work would be too embarrassing, humiliating, and/or degrading”. I am of the view that a reasonably objective individual in his circumstances would not have concluded that returning to work would be too embarrassing, humiliating, and/or degrading. [The employee] has given no evidence as to how or why he would be “humiliated, embarrassed or degraded”. The evidence is that, regardless of any offer that would have been made by [the employer], [the employee] never had any intention of accepting work under any circumstances. He never considered or evaluated the offer to work at [the employer]. He commenced an action against [the employer].”

As a result, the court found that the employee’s refusal to consider the employer’s offer of work was a failure to mitigate his damages. He was therefore only entitled to damages of $4,846 for the period from the date of the layoff to the date of recall (calculated on the basis of his base salary of $72,000 per annum).

Get Advice

If you have questions about unfair practices in the workplace, wrongful dismissal, or any other employment matter, contact the Mississauga employment lawyers at Campbell Bader LLP. We regularly advise both employers and employees on a wide range of issues that arise at work. Contact us online or by phone at 905 828 2247 to schedule a consultation.

Categories
Wrongful Dismissal/Termination

Employer Must Pay Dismissed Employee’s Relocation and Moving Expenses for New Job

An Ontario court ordered a former employer to pay a dismissed employee’s mitigation and moving expenses of just over $45,000 after she was forced to relocate to take a new job.

The Facts

 The employee began her career with the employer in 1999. She holds the professional designations of Certified General Accountant, Certified Public Accountant and Certified Payroll Manager. She also has an MBA.By the time she left her employment in 2015, she had received a series of promotions and held positions of increasing seniority and responsibility. However, after a major corporate merger and re-organization, she found herself with what she perceived to be a vastly diminished job and an uncertain future. She concluded she had been constructively dismissed and resigned her employment with the defendant.

The employee was able to find a new job. However, her income was reduced and she had to relocate to take the new job, incurring expenses to do so. She sued her former employer to recover her losses arising from her reduced income and her relocation costs.

 The Issues

At issue were whether the employee was constructively dismissed and what damages she may be entitled to under the Employment Standards Act (“ESA”). Additionally, the court had to assess what damages were recoverable by the employee on account of mitigation expenses.

 The Decision

On the first issue, after reviewing the evidence, the court found that the employer’s actions amounted to constructive dismissal. Additionally, the court found that, as a result, the employee was entitled to termination pay and severance payment under the ESA. She was also entitled to a common law damage award based on a calculation that subtracted her replacement income from her projected income with the former employer.

The court then turned to the issue of mitigation expenses. It noted thatin the case of an employee who has been wrongfully dismissed, the terminated employee is required to mitigate their damages by seeking and accepting reasonable alternative or replacement employment. It found that in this case, the employee mitigated her damages by accepting a job in southwestern Ontario at a reduced income.

The court noted that, in addition to her lost income claim, the employee was seeking reimbursement for various expenses that she says she incurred in order to transition to her new employment, or “costs of mitigation”. The court cited experts on this subject, who explain:

“A dismissed employee may be entitled to claim from the employer reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred while fulfilling the duty to mitigate and seeking out and accepting alternate employment. These costs are considered to be expenses incurred in the mitigation of damages and are the responsibility of the employer.”

Part of these recoverable expenses may include: real estate commission, moving expenses and legal fees incurred by an employee as a result of wrongful dismissal.

The court stated:

“By accepting the new job as she did, the [employee] substantially mitigated her damages. She reduced the [employer]’s exposure to a significant damage claim founded on lost income. To do so, however, she was forced to relocate. In my view, it would be inequitable to allow the [employer] to benefit from the [employee]’s mitigation efforts while at the same time denying her reimbursement for all costs she incurred to achieve that positive outcome. I therefore conclude that the [employer] should reimburse her for all reasonable expenses incurred in mitigating.”

Turning to the specific mitigation expenses incurred, the court summarized them as follows:

(1) expenses on the sale of the house in Mississauga;

(2) expenses on purchasing the house in southwestern Ontario; and

(3) expenses incurred during the transitional period while the employee was employed and staying in southwestern Ontario, before she sold the house in Mississauga and purchased the new house in southwestern Ontario and moving costs.

The court awarded the employee total mitigation expenses arising from the sale of the Mississauga house of just over $34,000. It awarded her mitigation expenses in the total amount of $3,500 for land transfer taxes, legal fees and related expenses incurred on the acquisition of the new house and $7,500 in moving and transitional expenses.

All totalled, the court ordered the employer to pay the employee mitigation expenses of just over $45,000.

Get Advice

If you have questions about unfair practices in the workplace, wrongful dismissal, or any other employment matter, contact the Mississauga employment lawyers at Campbell Bader LLP. We regularly advise both employers and employees on a wide range of issues that arise at work. Contact us online or by phone at 905 828 2247 to schedule a consultation.

 

Categories
Wrongful Dismissal/Termination

Employee Wins Defamation Suit Against Former Employer for Making False Statements About Her Work Performance

What happens if you find out your former employer is spreading misinformation about you? Earlier this year, an Ontario court had to decide on this exact issue and made a rare award of both punitive and defamation damages against a former employer.

The Facts

The employer carries on business as a full-service, fully registered investment firm. The employee in this case had worked for the employer as a securities trader. She joined the firm in 2008 and signed an employment agreement that set out the terms of her employment.

Part of her contract of employment required her to maintain a certain amount of money in a reserve account to absorb losses which commonly occur in trading. During a meeting on April 2, 2009, the employer asked her to increase her contribution to the reserve above what she believed her contract had set out. The employee said she would have to think about it.

The employment relationship ended the next day. The employee claims she was constructively dismissed and resigned by delivering a letter to this effect shortly before noon on April 3, 2009. The employer claims it terminated her employment for cause and delivered a letter to this effect late in the day on April 3, 2009.

In addition, on April 4, 2009, the employer filed a Notice of Termination on the National Research Database maintained by its regulator, the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (“IIROC”).  The notice stated that the employee was terminated for cause for failing to follow trading policies and engaging in unauthorized trading.

The Issues

The employer commenced an action claiming that the employee owed monies arising out of losses she incurred as a trader. The employee counterclaimed for damages for constructive dismissal and defamation.

The Decision

First, the court had to decide whether the employee was constructive dismissed or whether she was terminated for cause. After reviewing the contents of the contract, the court found that the increase to the reserve amount requested by the employer was not in accordance with the terms of the employee’s contract. The court found that her failure to pay the sums demanded did not constitute grounds to terminate her employment for cause and amounted to constructive dismissal. Constructive dismissal occurs where an employer makes a unilateral and fundamental change to a term or condition of an employment contract without providing reasonable notice.

The court awarded the employee just over $60,000 in pay in lieu of notice, representing six months of income and vacation pay.

The court then turned to the question of defamation. The employee was claiming $25,000 for damages for defamation arising out of the notice that the employer provided to IIROC concerning her departure. The employer denied that the notice was defamatory and asserted the defence of justification; in other words, it asserted that the statements were true. In the alternative, it argued that, if the statements were defamatory and untrue, the defence of qualified privilege applied.

The court began by stating that a “statement is defamatory if it tends to lower the reputation of a claimant in the eyes of a reasonable person” and that it is “defamatory to suggest that a person has been guilty of dishonest or disreputable conduct in a profession or calling.” Based on the evidence, the court found that the information included in the notice was defamatory.

The court then considered the employer’s first defence of justification. It stated that this defence is established if the statement made is substantially true. Additionally, the statement must be substantially true at the time that it is published. The court rejected this defence. It found that the employer failed to produce any documents to support its allegation of unauthorized trading.

Finally, the court considered the employer’s defence of qualified privilege. The court explained that this defence provides that, in some circumstances, the maker of a statement should have immunity from defamation and that qualified privilege arises where the maker of the statement has an interest in making the statement and those to whom the statement is made have an interest in receiving it.

While the court accepted the fact that the employer had an obligation to inform IIROC of the reasons for the employee’s departure, it noted that the defence of qualified privilege requires that the statements made are reasonably appropriate to the circumstances and that they are made honestly and in good faith. It found that the employer was “either being untruthful in its filing or was reckless with regard to the truth when making the filing.” As a result, the court rejected the defence and awarded the employee $25,000 for defamation damages.

In addition, the court considered whether the employee was entitled to punitive damages. The court stated that punitive damages are intended to punish the wrongful actor, not to compensate the complainant. In this case, it found that punitive damages should be awarded for several reasons, including deterrence, finding that “[this] is a case of indefensible, reprehensible conduct steadfastly maintained for eight and a half years.”

The court made an additional award of $25,000 in punitive damages.

Get Advice

 If you have questions about unfair practices in the workplace, wrongful dismissal, or any other employment matter, contact the Mississauga employment lawyers at Campbell Bader LLP. We regularly advise both employers and employees on a wide range of issues that arise at work. Contact us online or by phone at 905 828 2247 to schedule a consultation.