2,734
edits
Difference between revisions of "Causes of Action (20:App G)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Causes of Action (20:App G) (view source)
Revision as of 22:04, 23 November 2022
, 22:04, 23 November 2022→b) Breach of Employment Contract (implied terms)
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
The courts cannot enforce statutory rights such as those found in the ''Employment Standards Act'', as the Employment Standards Branch was created to rule on these types of claims and has exclusive jurisdiction over them. However, many parallel rights exist at common law and may be enforced by the courts. At common law, employment contracts contain numerous implied terms that are actionable through Small Claims, such as the requirement to give reasonable notice or payment in lieu upon the termination of an employee. Many employment contracts include express terms regarding notice which can override common law implied terms. | The courts cannot enforce statutory rights such as those found in the ''Employment Standards Act'', as the Employment Standards Branch was created to rule on these types of claims and has exclusive jurisdiction over them. However, many parallel rights exist at common law and may be enforced by the courts. At common law, employment contracts contain numerous implied terms that are actionable through Small Claims, such as the requirement to give reasonable notice or payment in lieu upon the termination of an employee. Many employment contracts include express terms regarding notice which can override common law implied terms. | ||
The fact that no written employment contract was signed does not disqualify an employee or former employee from claiming for breach of these terms. This is because an employee who is an "employee" under employment standards legislation will be entitled to the benefit of the statutory minimum notice provisions [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/1989/1989canlii2778/1989canlii2778.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQBVU3VsZW1hbiB2LiBCcml0aXNoIENvbHVtYmlhIFJlc2VhcmNoIENvdW5jaWwgKDE5ODkpLCAzOCBCLkMuTC5SLiAoMmQpIDIwOCAoQi5DLiBTLkMuKQAAAAAB&resultIndex=1|''Suleman v. British Columbia Research Council'' (1989), 38 B.C.L.R. (2d) 208 (B.C. S.C.)]; reversed on other grounds [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1990/1990canlii746/1990canlii746.html|(1990), 52 B.C.L.R. (2d) 138 (B.C. C.A.)]. See | The fact that no written employment contract was signed does not disqualify an employee or former employee from claiming for breach of these terms. This is because an employee who is an "employee" under employment standards legislation will be entitled to the benefit of the statutory minimum notice provisions [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/1989/1989canlii2778/1989canlii2778.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQBVU3VsZW1hbiB2LiBCcml0aXNoIENvbHVtYmlhIFJlc2VhcmNoIENvdW5jaWwgKDE5ODkpLCAzOCBCLkMuTC5SLiAoMmQpIDIwOCAoQi5DLiBTLkMuKQAAAAAB&resultIndex=1|''Suleman v. British Columbia Research Council'' (1989), 38 B.C.L.R. (2d) 208 (B.C. S.C.)]; reversed on other grounds [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1990/1990canlii746/1990canlii746.html|(1990), 52 B.C.L.R. (2d) 138 (B.C. C.A.)]. See [[Introduction_to_Employment_Law_(9:I)|Chapter 9: Employment Law]] for more details. | ||
===== '''Defences:''' ===== | ===== '''Defences:''' ===== | ||
#'''Just cause:''' If an employer terminates an employee for just cause the employer is not required to give the terminated employee reasonable notice or pay in lieu. The onus to prove just cause is on the employer, and the standard is generally hard to meet. See [[Foreword_on_Employment_Law_(9:I) | Chapter 9 – Employment Law]] for more details. | #'''Just cause:''' If an employer terminates an employee for just cause the employer is not required to give the terminated employee reasonable notice or pay in lieu. The onus to prove just cause is on the employer, and the standard is generally hard to meet. See [[Foreword_on_Employment_Law_(9:I) | Chapter 9 – Employment Law]] for more details. | ||
==== c) Debt ==== | ==== c) Debt ==== | ||