Court examines age impact on employment notice periods
The Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories recently dealt with a wrongful termination case involving a director of finance and administration who sought damages after being terminated without cause.
The worker, who was 69 years old at termination, argued that his age, senior position, and circumstances warranted a longer notice period than the six weeks offered.
The worker claimed he had been induced to leave stable employment and maintained that factors like his age and limited job market opportunities in the region should be considered in determining reasonable notice.
The case centred on interpreting municipal employment bylaws and their interaction with territorial employment standards legislation.
The key issue before the court was determining the appropriate notice period for a senior employee terminated without cause, considering factors like age, position level, and job market conditions.
The worker joined the municipal employer in April 2014 as director of finance and administration, overseeing a budget of approximately $10 million.
He held responsibility for the organisation's financial and administrative functions and supervised several staff members, reporting directly to the Senior Administrative Officer (SAO).
From February to August 2015, the municipality experienced a strike. During this period, the worker and one other excluded employee managed duties typically shared among six staff members.
While one councillor described the finance department as being "a mess" during the strike, the SAO testified that the management team performed well under significant strain.
In September 2015, the SAO informed the worker about position restructuring. The worker sought clarification about his employment status over the following weeks before receiving a termination letter in October 2015.
The court examined both the Northwest Territories Employment Standards Act and the employer's Personnel Employment By-law. As stated in the decision:
"The Employment Standards Act expressly provides that it sets out minimum standards that employers must meet and preserves rights at common law."
The court found that neither the Employment Standards Act nor the municipal bylaw limited the worker's entitlement to reasonable notice at common law.
The court noted the worker's age of 69 as relevant to his ability to secure new employment, citing established precedent from the Supreme Court of Canada's McKinney v University of Guelph decision that acknowledged competitive disadvantages older employees might face.
After termination, the worker applied for positions in Enterprise, Fort Simpson, and Smith Landing. The court found these were reasonable mitigation efforts given the limited availability of equivalent positions in the region.
Based on all factors, including position level, age, and job market conditions, the court determined:
"Given the nature of [the worker's] employment with [the employer], his age and the challenges in finding equivalent employment within a short period of time, I find that a reasonable notice period is eight months."
The court ordered compensation calculated at the higher pay rate of $57.42 per hour, stating:
"The failure of [the employer] to conduct an evaluation should not be used against [the worker]."
While noting the termination was poorly handled, the court found no evidence of bad faith or malicious conduct warranting additional damages, concluding: "Mere ineptness is not sufficient to attract damages for mental distress."
