Over $800,000.00 awarded British Columbia Wrongful Dismissal

The largest wrongful dismissal award in Canadian history was recently awarded by a jury in Prince George, British Columbia in the case of Higginson v. Babine Forest Products Ltd. The case was reported by the Prince George Citizen newspaper on July 27, 2012. The Plaintiff, Larry Higginson, had been employed by Babine Forest Products for 34 years and at the time of his dismissal worked as a manager in the electrical department of Babine's sawmill. At trial the jury awarded $809,000.00, the majority of this award was in punitive damages.

Punitive damages are not typically awarded in wrongful dismissal cases but in Higginson's case he alleged that the company management had deliberately attempted to create an unpleasant work environment at the sawmill in the hope that he would decide to leave on his own. When he didn't quit the company created false grounds to dismiss him for cause in order to avoid paying severance. In its decision the jury appeared to accept most, if not all, of Higginson's arguments in awarding approximately $236,000 in wrongful dismissal damages and $573,000 in punitive damages.

Following the trial, the company appealed the jury's decision but the parties settled the matter before the case reached the B.C. Court of Appeal. The company's appeal would likely have focused on the substantial punitive damages award. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that punitive damages should only be awarded when normal compensatory damages do not achieve the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and denunciation required by the circumstances of the case.

The case of Honda v. Keays decided by the Supreme Court in 2008 has been interpreted as restricting the availability of punitive damages in employment law cases.

In follow up interviews regarding the case the Lawyers for Higginson noted that prior to his dismissal the company asked Higginson to sign a document relinquishing his rights to severance and excluded him from meetings that he was normally required to attend as part of his duties. Because Higginson asked for a trial with a jury, there is no detailed decision from the trial judge explaining the precise reasons for the substantial judgement. However, the size of the total award should provide caution to any employer trying to use pressure tactics to get an employee to quit in order to avoid their severance obligations.

Frequently Asked Questions

Fired without Cause - Should you take the offer?

I was fired without cause. My employer has given me an offer. Should I take it?

Answer: Employers aren’t handcuffed to their employees. If they act in accordance with their statutory and common law obligations, employers are free to part ways with employees without cause. Typically, the employer is obliged to provide statutory or common law reasonable notice or payment in lieu of notice. Costs, benefits, risks and reward of bringing legal action, should all be considered, prior to starting a claim.

Needlessly pursuing litigation could potentially prejudice the employee. You could delay the settlement and run the risk of losing a fair offer. You may find another job in the weeks following termination. If this happens, then the employer’s settlement may be subject to mitigation which means that they are credited the wages you obtain from that new job. You may also pay more in legal fees then the additional notice you should have received.

There are cases where employees are grossly underpaid when it comes to severance, so I do advocate that everyone who faces termination seek counsel to go over any severance offer. Do not sign it blindly. Speak to a Lawyer and make sure the offer is fair. Employers will often expect and, if prudent, will insist that their past employees reach out to counsel when deciding to sign a severance offer. You should do so as soon as possible after receiving the offer.

Resources:

Need an Employment Lawyer? Reach out today. You may be eligible for a FREE no obligation consultation.

What is "just cause" in employment law?

Last month local newspapers reported the case of a McDonald’s employee in Kanata who was dismissed after receiving poor performance reviews. The employee received more than $100,000.00 in court. Why?

‍The short answer is that the judge in this case found that although the employee’s performance was not perfect the employer did not have “just cause” to terminate her employment contract. If a business chooses to dismiss an employee the employer has to first decide if they have just cause to end the contract or not. Just cause exists when an employee has committed a serious breach of contract such as theft or continually missing work without reason. If the employer does not have just cause then in most cases they have to provide compensation which can equal up to a month of salary for every year of the employee’s service.

Many employers have staff who they believe are poor performers. Performance reviews are often done to encourage better performance but may also be an attempt to build a case for a just cause dismissal. After several poor performance reviews an employer may choose to dismiss an employee for just cause. However, a decision to terminate an employee for just cause can be challenged in court where employers often find it difficult to prove that the alleged breach of contract was serious enough to warrant a just cause dismissal. Poor performance reviews may show that an employee was less than perfect but this alone is usually not enough to disentitle them to some compensation when they are dismissed. Because compensation is typically based on the number of years the employee has worked, the amount owing to dismissed employee can be significant which is what occurred in the case of the former McDonald’s employee.

When can my insurer review my entitlements to disability benefits?

I have a chronic medical condition which unfortunately has become worse over time. For the last two years I have been receiving benefits through my employer’s disability insurance plan. Recently, the insurer wrote to advise me that the terms of the policy have changed and that they now require additional medical information - why is this happening and am I at risk of losing my benefits?

‍Most disability insurance policies provided by employers have different coverage for different periods of time. For the first two years of an employee’s disability benefits are generally provided on the basis that you cannot perform the essential duties of your existing occupation. The definition of disability changes after two years in most policies.

One of the first steps in your case is to obtain a copy of the policy from your employer. This policy will usually include a brief description of the criteria that an employee must meet to be entitled to disability benefits. In the vast majority of cases after two years of paying benefits policies will limit an employee’s entitlement to further benefits unless the employee is unable to work in any occupation to which they are reasonably suited.

Because of this change to the disability definition, insurance companies will generally review files and seek additional medical information if someone has been receiving benefits for two years. However, Ontario courts have recognized that whether an individual is able to perform any occupation depends not only on their particular disability, but also their basic skill set and educational background. In many cases insurers won’t cut off benefits once they have completed their review and have received additional medical information. However, if you and your insurer disagree about whether you are capable of returning to the workforce it may be time to contact a Lawyer.