Court examines workplace transition and termination evidence standards
The Supreme Court of British Columbia recently dealt with a wrongful dismissal case examining whether an employer had just cause to terminate a long-term worker's employment without notice.
A worker who had served since 1993 challenged her termination after being accused of fraudulent misconduct and breach of company confidentiality and trust. The termination occurred after the business transitioned to new management following the original owner's death.
The employer alleged multiple grounds for termination, including unauthorized pay raises, improper generation of employment records, and misuse of company property.
The worker disputed these allegations and argued she was wrongfully dismissed.
The case involved a small automotive business in Nakusp, British Columbia. The worker started as a gas station attendant and later took on bookkeeping duties.
The court noted that while she handled payroll and administrative tasks, her role remained relatively the same.
Following the original owner's death in August 2020, his children took ownership, with his daughter assuming primary management responsibilities.
The worker initially helped train the new manager on business operations, including software systems and vendor relationships.
By August 2021, the working relationship had deteriorated. After a workplace incident, the worker went on medical leave due to stress-related health issues. Upon her planned return in October 2021, she was presented with a new contract proposing reduced hours.
The court examined multiple allegations, including the worker's generation of her own Record of Employment (ROE) for medical leave. The court found: "The defendant accepts that the plaintiff's medical leave was justified and proper such that the defendant was required to issue a ROE."
The decision highlighted issues with the employer's evidence, stating: "Where the allegations do not align with the [Response to Civil Claim], I will address the discrepancies as I move through my analysis."
Regarding the worker's credibility, the court noted: "Generally, I found the [worker] to be a credible witness. She presented as unsophisticated and perhaps naïve in some respects... Her manner of presentation was straightforward and candid."
The court applied established principles for determining reasonable notice, citing Bardal factors including "the character of the employment, the length of service, the age, and the availability of similar employment, having regard to the experience, training and qualifications."
After analyzing the evidence, the court concluded: "The contextual approach called upon by the authorities referenced above does not support a finding of just cause for termination... The defendant did nothing to address any concerns until the November 3 meeting."
The court awarded 18 months' notice period, calculating damages based on an hourly rate of $24, holiday entitlements, and considering mitigation earnings.
The court dismissed claims for aggravated and punitive damages, finding insufficient evidence that the termination process caused damage beyond normal upset from dismissal.
