Difference between revisions of "Employment Law Issues (9:V)"

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 810: Line 810:


According to some case law, previous misconduct that has been condoned may be revived by new instances of misconduct, and the employer may then use the cumulative effect of the past and the new misconduct to justify dismissal.  However, this is an area with conflicting case law.  If the employer has warned the employee about the past misconduct, there would not be an issue regarding the revival of the past misconduct, as it would not have been condoned in the first place; the cumulative effect of the misconduct could then be used to justify dismissal.
According to some case law, previous misconduct that has been condoned may be revived by new instances of misconduct, and the employer may then use the cumulative effect of the past and the new misconduct to justify dismissal.  However, this is an area with conflicting case law.  If the employer has warned the employee about the past misconduct, there would not be an issue regarding the revival of the past misconduct, as it would not have been condoned in the first place; the cumulative effect of the misconduct could then be used to justify dismissal.
 
The employee carries the burden of proving the condonation; see ''Perry v Papillon Restaurant (1981)'', 8 ACWS (2d) 216.
The employee carries the burden of proving the condonation; see ''Perry v Papillon Restaurant (1981)'', 8 ACWS (2d) 216.


==+= c) Improper Just Cause Allegations as a Litigation Tactic ===+
=== c) 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 R''uston v. Keddco Mfg. (2011) Ltd.'', 2018 ONSC 2919, https://canlii.ca/t/hs2rn, where the court awarded moral damages, extensive costs, and $100,000 in punitive damages for improper cause allegations.
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, https://canlii.ca/t/hs2rn, where the court awarded moral damages, extensive costs, and $100,000 in punitive damages for improper cause allegations.
2,734

edits

Navigation menu