5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Employment Law Issues (9:V)"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Employment Law Issues (9:V) (view source)
Revision as of 17:53, 16 August 2019
, 17:53, 16 August 2019no edit summary
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
See IV.C.5: Exceptions to the General Rule (Specialty Professions) to determine whether the ''ESA'' applies to the employee in question. See [[{{PAGENAME}}#6. Hours of Work and Overtime Pay | V.A.6: Hours of Work and Overtime Pay]] to determine if the employee is exempt from overtime. | See IV.C.5: Exceptions to the General Rule (Specialty Professions) to determine whether the ''ESA'' applies to the employee in question. See [[{{PAGENAME}}#6. Hours of Work and Overtime Pay | V.A.6: Hours of Work and Overtime Pay]] to determine if the employee is exempt from overtime. | ||
=== Hiring Practices === | === 1. Hiring Practices === | ||
An employer may not induce a person to become an employee or to make him or herself available for work by deceptive or false representations or advertising respecting the availability of a position, the nature of the work to be done, the wages to be paid for the work, or the conditions of employment. If this occurs, the employee could file a complaint at the Employment Standards Branch per section 8 of the ESA. | An employer may not induce a person to become an employee or to make him or herself available for work by deceptive or false representations or advertising respecting the availability of a position, the nature of the work to be done, the wages to be paid for the work, or the conditions of employment. If this occurs, the employee could file a complaint at the Employment Standards Branch per section 8 of the ESA. | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
Apart from ESA entitlements, an employee who was hired as a result of false representations could potentially sue for the tort of misrepresentation. For more information about this tort, see ''Queen v Cognos Inc'', [1993] 1 SCR 87. | Apart from ESA entitlements, an employee who was hired as a result of false representations could potentially sue for the tort of misrepresentation. For more information about this tort, see ''Queen v Cognos Inc'', [1993] 1 SCR 87. | ||
=== Employment Agencies === | === 2. Employment Agencies === | ||
An employment agency is any person or company that recruits employees for employers for a fee. All employment agencies must be licensed and they must keep records. An employment agency may not receive any payment from a person seeking employment either for obtaining employment or for providing information respecting prospective employers. Any payment wrongfully received can be recovered under the ESA, s 11. | An employment agency is any person or company that recruits employees for employers for a fee. All employment agencies must be licensed and they must keep records. An employment agency may not receive any payment from a person seeking employment either for obtaining employment or for providing information respecting prospective employers. Any payment wrongfully received can be recovered under the ESA, s 11. | ||
=== Talent Agencies === | === 3. Talent Agencies === | ||
A number of the more recent amendments to the ESA deal with talent agencies and impose minimum standards on what was previously an unregulated industry. A talent agency must be licensed annually under the Act. Once an agency is licensed, it may receive wages on behalf of clients who have done work in the film or television industry. Section 38.1 of the ES Regulation provides that wages received by a talent agency from an employer must be paid to the employee within a prescribed period: five business days from receipt of payment if payment is made within B.C. and twelve business days from receipt of payment if payment is made from outside B.C. | A number of the more recent amendments to the ESA deal with talent agencies and impose minimum standards on what was previously an unregulated industry. A talent agency must be licensed annually under the Act. Once an agency is licensed, it may receive wages on behalf of clients who have done work in the film or television industry. Section 38.1 of the ES Regulation provides that wages received by a talent agency from an employer must be paid to the employee within a prescribed period: five business days from receipt of payment if payment is made within B.C. and twelve business days from receipt of payment if payment is made from outside B.C. | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
Talent agencies can charge a maximum 15 percent commission, and must ensure that the employee receives at least minimum wage after this deduction. The only other fee a talent agency may charge is for photography, and this charge must not exceed $25.00 per year. This fee may only be deducted from wages owed to the employee. When a talent agency is named in a determination or order, unpaid wages constitute a lien against the real and personal property of the agency. A 1999 amendment to section 127 of the Act gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council the power to regulate these agencies and, accordingly, the ES Regulation should be consulted for further information. A list of talent agencies currently licensed in B.C. is available at http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/employment-business/employment-standards-advice/employment-standards/specific-industries/talent-agencies. | Talent agencies can charge a maximum 15 percent commission, and must ensure that the employee receives at least minimum wage after this deduction. The only other fee a talent agency may charge is for photography, and this charge must not exceed $25.00 per year. This fee may only be deducted from wages owed to the employee. When a talent agency is named in a determination or order, unpaid wages constitute a lien against the real and personal property of the agency. A 1999 amendment to section 127 of the Act gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council the power to regulate these agencies and, accordingly, the ES Regulation should be consulted for further information. A list of talent agencies currently licensed in B.C. is available at http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/employment-business/employment-standards-advice/employment-standards/specific-industries/talent-agencies. | ||
=== Child Employment === | === 4. Child Employment === | ||
Employing a child is an offence for which both the employee and the employer are liable. The ESA does not apply to certain types of employment such as babysitters and some students (''ES Regulation'', s 32). | Employing a child is an offence for which both the employee and the employer are liable. The ESA does not apply to certain types of employment such as babysitters and some students (''ES Regulation'', s 32). | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
If an employer is accused of illegally using child employment they will carry the onus in proving that it was either justified, or that the child was of legal age. | If an employer is accused of illegally using child employment they will carry the onus in proving that it was either justified, or that the child was of legal age. | ||
=== Wages === | === 5. Wages === | ||
==== Minimum Wage and the Entry Level Wage ==== | ==== Minimum Wage and the Entry Level Wage ==== | ||
| Line 418: | Line 418: | ||
Once a job offer is made and accepted, a contract is in place (though as discussed above, it may be unwritten). In order to change the terms of the contract after it is in place, there must normally be fresh consideration flowing from each party to the other. Consideration in contract law is the benefit one party receives from another as a result of entering into a contract with another party. This means that to change an existing contract, the new contract must contain a new benefit for both the employer and the employee. Because of this, an entire written contract might be invalid if the contract was imposed on the employee after they had already accepted the job offer: the employee would already have a contract, and the written contract would need to have some new benefit, or “fresh consideration”, for the employee. Compare the signature dates on the written contract to the actual start dates, to determine if there is an argument that the contract is unenforceable for lack of consideration. | Once a job offer is made and accepted, a contract is in place (though as discussed above, it may be unwritten). In order to change the terms of the contract after it is in place, there must normally be fresh consideration flowing from each party to the other. Consideration in contract law is the benefit one party receives from another as a result of entering into a contract with another party. This means that to change an existing contract, the new contract must contain a new benefit for both the employer and the employee. Because of this, an entire written contract might be invalid if the contract was imposed on the employee after they had already accepted the job offer: the employee would already have a contract, and the written contract would need to have some new benefit, or “fresh consideration”, for the employee. Compare the signature dates on the written contract to the actual start dates, to determine if there is an argument that the contract is unenforceable for lack of consideration. | ||
Be aware that the BCCA case of Rosas v. Toca, 2018 BCCA 191, while not an employment law case, may present some arguments for employers that new employee contracts entered into during the course of employment should be enforceable, even if there is no valid consideration. At paragraph 183 of Toca: “When parties to a contract agree to vary its terms, the variation should be enforceable without fresh consideration, absent duress, unconscionability, or other public policy concerns, which would render an otherwise valid term unenforceable.”. As this Toca case is new a note up of employment law cases referencing or applying Toca will be important to an analysis under this topic. | Be aware that the BCCA case of ''Rosas v. Toca'', 2018 BCCA 191, while not an employment law case, may present some arguments for employers that new employee contracts entered into during the course of employment should be enforceable, even if there is no valid consideration. At paragraph 183 of Toca: “When parties to a contract agree to vary its terms, the variation should be enforceable without fresh consideration, absent duress, unconscionability, or other public policy concerns, which would render an otherwise valid term unenforceable.”. As this Toca case is new a note up of employment law cases referencing or applying Toca will be important to an analysis under this topic. | ||
==== Invalid Contracts – Vagueness or Ambiguity ==== | ==== Invalid Contracts – Vagueness or Ambiguity ==== | ||
| Line 431: | Line 431: | ||
Any term of the written contract that does not meet the minimum standards set out by the Employment Standards Act (for provincially regulated employees) or the Canada Labour Code (for federally regulated employees) is invalid. | Any term of the written contract that does not meet the minimum standards set out by the Employment Standards Act (for provincially regulated employees) or the Canada Labour Code (for federally regulated employees) is invalid. | ||
A contractual termination clause is not enforceable if, at any time, the clause would provide the employee with less than his entitlement under the ESA. See Shore v Ladner Downs, [1998] 160 DLR (4th) 76. | A contractual termination clause is not enforceable if, at any time, the clause would provide the employee with less than his entitlement under the ESA. See ''Shore v Ladner Downs'', [1998] 160 DLR (4th) 76. | ||
If a term of the contract is invalid, then the employee will likely receive whatever the common law provides instead of what the contract said. | If a term of the contract is invalid, then the employee will likely receive whatever the common law provides instead of what the contract said. | ||
| Line 443: | Line 443: | ||
In the previous example, it is irrelevant whether the employee has worked for the employer long enough to be entitled to more than 30 days of notice under the ESA. | In the previous example, it is irrelevant whether the employee has worked for the employer long enough to be entitled to more than 30 days of notice under the ESA. | ||
However, this principle may have been qualified with respect to severance clauses and fixed term contracts (see Miller v Convergys CMG Canada Limited Partnership, 2013 BCSC 1589 (upheld on appeal); Rogers v Tourism British Columbia, 2010 BCSC 1562). | However, this principle may have been qualified with respect to severance clauses and fixed term contracts (see ''Miller v Convergys CMG Canada Limited Partnership'', 2013 BCSC 1589 (upheld on appeal); ''Rogers v Tourism British Columbia'', 2010 BCSC 1562). | ||
No Severance Ceiling Set out in Termination Clause | No Severance Ceiling Set out in Termination Clause | ||
If a contractual ESA severance termination clauses does not set out that this severance is the maximum an employee will receive, the employee may not be limited to such a severance. | If a contractual ESA severance termination clauses does not set out that this severance is the maximum an employee will receive, the employee may not be limited to such a severance. | ||
In Holm v AGAT Laboratories Ltd, 2018 ABCA 23, the Alberta Court of Appeal looked at whether a termination clause was sufficient to limit a constructively dismissed employee’s entitlement to severance. The termination clause provided for dismissal in accordance with the Alberta Employment Standards Code, but did not clearly state that this entitlement was a ceiling. As a result, the clause was ambiguous, and did not act to limit the employee’s severance entitlement. | In ''Holm v AGAT Laboratories Ltd'', 2018 ABCA 23, the Alberta Court of Appeal looked at whether a termination clause was sufficient to limit a constructively dismissed employee’s entitlement to severance. The termination clause provided for dismissal in accordance with the Alberta Employment Standards Code, but did not clearly state that this entitlement was a ceiling. As a result, the clause was ambiguous, and did not act to limit the employee’s severance entitlement. | ||
In Movati Athletic ( Group) Inc v Bergeron ( 2018 ONSC 7258), the Ontario Divisional Court also found a termination clause that allowed the employer to terminate employment without cause at any time upon providing notice or pay in lieu of notice pursuant to Ontario Employment Standards was also not sufficient to limit the employee’s severance, as it did not clearly state that the minimum statutory severance was a cap. | In ''Movati Athletic ( Group) Inc v Bergeron'' ( 2018 ONSC 7258), the Ontario Divisional Court also found a termination clause that allowed the employer to terminate employment without cause at any time upon providing notice or pay in lieu of notice pursuant to Ontario Employment Standards was also not sufficient to limit the employee’s severance, as it did not clearly state that the minimum statutory severance was a cap. | ||
==== General Contract Construction Rules Apply ==== | ==== General Contract Construction Rules Apply ==== | ||
| Line 618: | Line 618: | ||
==== Poor Employee Performance ==== | ==== Poor Employee Performance ==== | ||
Where there is actual incompetence, not just dissatisfaction with an employee’s work, the employee may be dismissed with cause if such incompetence is the fault of the employee (''Waite v La Ronge Childcare Co-operative'' (l985), 40 Sask R 260 (QB)). If an employee presents an exaggerated assessment of his or her own skills, a company is justified in dismissing that employee after finding out his or her true abilities (''Manners v Fraser Surrey Docks Ltd'' (1981), 9 ACWS (2d) 155). Incompetence is assessed using an objective standard of performance, and it is for the employer to prove that the employee fell below the standard. Usually, one isolated example of failure to meet such a test does not warrant discharge (Clark v Capp (1905), 9 OLR 192). The employer must prove that: | Where there is actual incompetence, not just dissatisfaction with an employee’s work, the employee may be dismissed with cause if such incompetence is the fault of the employee (''Waite v La Ronge Childcare Co-operative'' (l985), 40 Sask R 260 (QB)). If an employee presents an exaggerated assessment of his or her own skills, a company is justified in dismissing that employee after finding out his or her true abilities (''Manners v Fraser Surrey Docks Ltd'' (1981), 9 ACWS (2d) 155). Incompetence is assessed using an objective standard of performance, and it is for the employer to prove that the employee fell below the standard. Usually, one isolated example of failure to meet such a test does not warrant discharge (''Clark v Capp (1905)'', 9 OLR 192). The employer must prove that: | ||
*a) reasonable standards of behaviour and performance were set and clearly communicated to the employee; | *a) reasonable standards of behaviour and performance were set and clearly communicated to the employee; | ||
| Line 668: | Line 668: | ||
==== Breach of Confidence/Privacy Obligations ==== | ==== Breach of Confidence/Privacy Obligations ==== | ||
An employee’s unauthorized disclose of employer confidential information may amount to a cause dismissal. An employee’s secret recording of meetings with management might be found to be a breach of confidentiality and privacy obligations amounting to cause. See Hart v. Parrish & Heimbecker, Limited 2017 MBQB 68 | An employee’s unauthorized disclose of employer confidential information may amount to a cause dismissal. An employee’s secret recording of meetings with management might be found to be a breach of confidentiality and privacy obligations amounting to cause. See ''Hart v. Parrish & Heimbecker'', Limited 2017 MBQB 68 | ||
==== Just Cause - Deleting Company Information ==== | ==== Just Cause - Deleting Company Information ==== | ||
Deleting or altering company information in the course of departure from employment may in some circumstances be grounds for a just cause dismissal. However, as with all just cause cases a McKinley contextual analysis should be applied. In the case of Kerr v. Arpac Storage Systems Corporation, 2018 BCSC 704, the court found the employee’s deletion of company information around the end of employment was not enough to constitute a just cause dismissal, partially due to the employee’s mental state and because the employee apologized. | Deleting or altering company information in the course of departure from employment may in some circumstances be grounds for a just cause dismissal. However, as with all just cause cases a McKinley contextual analysis should be applied. In the case of ''Kerr v. Arpac Storage Systems Corporation'', 2018 BCSC 704, the court found the employee’s deletion of company information around the end of employment was not enough to constitute a just cause dismissal, partially due to the employee’s mental state and because the employee apologized. | ||
=== 20. Defences to Just Cause Arguments === | === 20. Defences to Just Cause Arguments === | ||
| Line 684: | Line 684: | ||
==== Condonation ==== | ==== Condonation ==== | ||
If an employer’s behaviour indicates that they are overlooking conduct which gives cause, that employer cannot later dismiss the employee without new cause arising; see (McIntyre v Hockin (1889), 1l6 OAR 498 (CA)). This applies only where the employer knows of the conduct. The employer is entitled to reasonable time to decide whether to take action, and this reasonable time period commences at the time that the employer learns of the employee’s conduct. | If an employer’s behaviour indicates that they are overlooking conduct which gives cause, that employer cannot later dismiss the employee without new cause arising; see (''McIntyre v Hockin (1889)'', 1l6 OAR 498 (CA)). This applies only where the employer knows of the conduct. The employer is entitled to reasonable time to decide whether to take action, and this reasonable time period commences at the time that the employer learns of the employee’s conduct. | ||
Behaviour by the employer constituting condonation may include actions or omissions such as failing to dismiss the employee within a reasonable time (Benson v. Lynes United Services Ltd, [1979] 18 A.R. 328), tolerating an employee’s behaviour without reprimand (Johnston v General Tire Canada Ltd, [1985] OJ No 98), giving the employee a raise (SjervenS v. Port Alberni Friendship Center, [2000] BCJ No 608), or giving the employee a promotion (Miller v Wackenhut of Canada Ltd, [1989] OJ No 1993). | Behaviour by the employer constituting condonation may include actions or omissions such as failing to dismiss the employee within a reasonable time (''Benson v. Lynes United Services Ltd'', [1979] 18 A.R. 328), tolerating an employee’s behaviour without reprimand (''Johnston v General Tire Canada Ltd'', [1985] OJ No 98), giving the employee a raise (''SjervenS v. Port Alberni Friendship Center'', [2000] BCJ No 608), or giving the employee a promotion (''Miller v Wackenhut of Canada Ltd'', [1989] OJ No 1993). | ||
If an employer learns of an employee’s misconduct after dismissing the employee, the employer may use that misconduct to justify the dismissal for cause. This can be referred to as after-acquired cause. | If an employer learns of an employee’s misconduct after dismissing the employee, the employer may use that misconduct to justify the dismissal for cause. This can be referred to as after-acquired cause. | ||
However, if the employer already knew of the employee’s misconduct, but terminated the employee without alleging cause or gave the employee a letter of reference, in some cases the employer has been held to be estopped from alleging cause or has been taken to have condoned the employee’s misconduct. However, there is conflicting case law on this subject and many cases have held that the employer may still allege cause. See Smith v Pacific Coast Terminals, 2016 BCSC 1876; Technicon Industries Ltd v Woon, 2016 BCSC 1543. | However, if the employer already knew of the employee’s misconduct, but terminated the employee without alleging cause or gave the employee a letter of reference, in some cases the employer has been held to be estopped from alleging cause or has been taken to have condoned the employee’s misconduct. However, there is conflicting case law on this subject and many cases have held that the employer may still allege cause. See ''Smith v Pacific Coast Terminals'', 2016 BCSC 1876; ''Technicon Industries Ltd v Woon'', 2016 BCSC 1543. | ||
=== Improper Just Cause Allegations as a Litigation Tactic === | === Improper Just Cause Allegations as a Litigation Tactic === | ||
Some employers assert just cause (or file counterclaims) as a litigation tactic to deter an employee from advancing a valid wrongful dismissal claim. In these scenarios employees may use that employer tactic as both a defence, and as grounds for additional damages claims against the employer. See | Some employers assert just cause (or file counterclaims) as a litigation tactic to deter an employee from advancing a valid wrongful dismissal claim. In these scenarios employees may use that employer tactic as both a defence, and as grounds for additional damages claims against the employer. See R''uston v. Keddco Mfg. (2011) Ltd.'', 2018 ONSC 2919 , where the court awarded moral damages, extensive costs, and $100,000 in punitive damages for improper cause allegations. | ||
=== 21. Redundancy and Layoff === | === 21. Redundancy and Layoff === | ||
| Line 771: | Line 771: | ||
The loss must arise as a result of the manner of dismissal, and not due to the dismissal itself. | The loss must arise as a result of the manner of dismissal, and not due to the dismissal itself. | ||
An employee should be encouraged to obtain medical evidence such as a doctor’s report connecting this manner of dismissal to a personal injury. For example, the doctor’s report might document the employee’s depression, anxiety, or other mental harm. It may be helpful to have a doctor testify in court in order to present a solid case for aggravated damages. However, an employee can provide his or her own testimony regarding an injury, without medical corroboration, and a court can still consider whether to award aggravated damages. See Lau v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2017 BCCA 253. If the employee did not suffer documented harm, see section V.C.13.b: Punitive Damages below. | An employee should be encouraged to obtain medical evidence such as a doctor’s report connecting this manner of dismissal to a personal injury. For example, the doctor’s report might document the employee’s depression, anxiety, or other mental harm. It may be helpful to have a doctor testify in court in order to present a solid case for aggravated damages. However, an employee can provide his or her own testimony regarding an injury, without medical corroboration, and a court can still consider whether to award aggravated damages. See ''Lau v. Royal Bank of Canada'', 2017 BCCA 253. If the employee did not suffer documented harm, see section V.C.13.b: Punitive Damages below. | ||
The basis for these additional damages is a breach of the implied term of an employment contract that employers will act in good faith in the manner of dismissal. In Honda Canada Inc v Keays, 2008 SCC 39, the Supreme Court of Canada held that any such additional award must be compensatory and must be based on the actual loss or damage suffered by the employee, which can include mental distress stemming from the manner of dismissal. However, normal distress and hurt feelings arising from the dismissal itself are not grounds for additional damages. | The basis for these additional damages is a breach of the implied term of an employment contract that employers will act in good faith in the manner of dismissal. In ''Honda Canada Inc v Keays'', 2008 SCC 39, the Supreme Court of Canada held that any such additional award must be compensatory and must be based on the actual loss or damage suffered by the employee, which can include mental distress stemming from the manner of dismissal. However, normal distress and hurt feelings arising from the dismissal itself are not grounds for additional damages. | ||
Prior to the Honda v Keays decision, damages awarded where the employer had acted in bad faith were assessed by simply extending the notice period to which the employee would otherwise be entitled. This practice was based on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd, [1997] 3 SCR 701, and the awards were informally known as “Wallace Damages”. Following the Honda v Keays decision, the practice of assessing damages by extending the notice period is no longer to be used. Now, a claimant must prove what actual losses or mental harm the employee incurred, and the employee is then compensated for those actual losses or mental distress. See Strudwick v Applied Consumer & Clinical Evaluations Inc., 2016 ONCA 520. | Prior to the Honda v Keays decision, damages awarded where the employer had acted in bad faith were assessed by simply extending the notice period to which the employee would otherwise be entitled. This practice was based on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in ''Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd'', [1997] 3 SCR 701, and the awards were informally known as “Wallace Damages”. Following the Honda v Keays decision, the practice of assessing damages by extending the notice period is no longer to be used. Now, a claimant must prove what actual losses or mental harm the employee incurred, and the employee is then compensated for those actual losses or mental distress. See ''Strudwick v Applied Consumer & Clinical Evaluations Inc''., 2016 ONCA 520. | ||
What constitutes “bad faith” is for the courts to decide, and has in the past centred on deception and dishonesty. Mere “peremptory” treatment is not sufficient: see, for example, Bureau v KPMG Quality Registrar Inc, [1999] NSJ No. 261 (NSCA). Sexual harassment has been held not to give rise to additional damages (Chiang v Kejo Holdings Ltd, 2005 BCSC 414). See, however, Sulz v Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, 2006 BCCA 582, where punitive damages were awarded for sexually harassing conduct in the employment context. | What constitutes “bad faith” is for the courts to decide, and has in the past centred on deception and dishonesty. Mere “peremptory” treatment is not sufficient: see, for example, ''Bureau v KPMG Quality Registrar Inc'', [1999] NSJ No. 261 (NSCA). Sexual harassment has been held not to give rise to additional damages (''Chiang v Kejo Holdings Ltd'', 2005 BCSC 414). See, however, ''Sulz v Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General'', 2006 BCCA 582, where punitive damages were awarded for sexually harassing conduct in the employment context. | ||
'''Bad Faith Performance of Contracts''' | '''Bad Faith Performance of Contracts''' | ||
| Line 788: | Line 788: | ||
*iv) where an employer promised an employee he would keep his job after a merger, although he knew differently (''Bryde v Liberty Mutual'', 2002 BCSC 606). In one case, a response by employer’s counsel to an employee’s counsel containing an allegation of just cause where none existed was held not to constitute bad faith (''Nahnychuk v Elite Retail Solutions Inc'', 2004 BCSC 746). However, in another province, a letter threatening to allege just cause where none existed, for the purpose of forcing a settlement, even though just cause was not plead in court, was held to give rise to additional damages (''Squires v Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Ltd'', [1999] NJ No 146 (Nfld CA)); and, | *iv) where an employer promised an employee he would keep his job after a merger, although he knew differently (''Bryde v Liberty Mutual'', 2002 BCSC 606). In one case, a response by employer’s counsel to an employee’s counsel containing an allegation of just cause where none existed was held not to constitute bad faith (''Nahnychuk v Elite Retail Solutions Inc'', 2004 BCSC 746). However, in another province, a letter threatening to allege just cause where none existed, for the purpose of forcing a settlement, even though just cause was not plead in court, was held to give rise to additional damages (''Squires v Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Ltd'', [1999] NJ No 146 (Nfld CA)); and, | ||
*v) where an employer has made false accusations about the employee at the time of dismissal. See Price v 481530 BC Ltd et al, 2016 BCSC 1940, where an employer dismissed an employee on the basis of false allegations of dishonesty contributing to the creation of a hostile work environment and ultimately his constructive dismissal. | *v) where an employer has made false accusations about the employee at the time of dismissal. See Price v 481530 BC Ltd et al, 2016 BCSC 1940, where an employer dismissed an employee on the basis of false allegations of dishonesty contributing to the creation of a hostile work environment and ultimately his constructive dismissal. | ||
*vi) Where an employer produced false evidence of the employee’s absence without leave in order to argue just cause for dismissal and only offered ESA minimum severance (Bailey v. Service Corporation International (Canada) ULC, 2018 BCSC 235)). | *vi) Where an employer produced false evidence of the employee’s absence without leave in order to argue just cause for dismissal and only offered ESA minimum severance (''Bailey v. Service Corporation International (Canada) ULC'', 2018 BCSC 235)). | ||
'''Good Faith Performance of Contracts''' | '''Good Faith Performance of Contracts''' | ||
