Webb v

.docx

School

Centennial College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

308

Subject

History

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by AmbassadorTree13458

Webb v. SDT North America, 2023 ONSC 7170 (CanLII) Good morning! I will be presenting the case of Webb v. SDT North America, a recent decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. This case deals with employment-related issues, specifically the nature of Mr. Webb’s layoff during the COVID-19 pandemic. So let us delve into the key facts and issues of this case. Facts: The plaintiff, Mr. Webb, was instructed to stay home on March 22, 2020, and officially laid off on March 25, 2020. On March 27, 2020, the employer contacted Mr. Webb to ask if he was willing to return to work; he said he was, but employer did not recall him. The employer was later deemed as essential service, and Mr. Webb contacted them on May 6 and 7, 2020 to inquire about returning to work. Mr. Webb was one of the six laid-off employees, but he was never recalled. Mr. Webb believes he was constructively dismissed due to no contractual provision for layoff. Defendant argues the layoff should be designated as Infectious Disease Emergency Leave (IDEL). Issues: Does Mr. Webb situation fall within the scope of IDEL exemption created on May 29, 2020, by section 7 of O.Reg. 228/20 under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA)? Impact of an IDEL on a common law claim of constructive dismissal. Was Mr. Webb constructively dismissed? Laws/Rules: Infectious Disease Emergency Leave (IDEL) Section 8 of the Employment Standards Act (ESA). This section outlines that, unless specified otherwise in section 97, the ESA does not affect civil remedies. So even the case involves a situation covered by IDEL, Mr. Webb is not prevented from pursuing a common law claim for constructive dismissal. Constructive dismissal principles under the ESA Analysis:
The court determined that Mr. Webb’s layoff during pandemic was in accordance with the Infectious Disease Emergency Leave (IDEL) regulations, without any evidence of ulterior motives. It appeared to be genuinely linked to pandemic-related factors. The court emphasized that IDEL regulations do not prevent a common law claim for constructive dismissal. Referencing (Fogelman v. IFG and Coutinho v. Ocular Health Centre Ltd.) under Section 8 of the Employment Standard Acts (ESA). The court emphasized that the employer must possess either an express (clearly stated in the employment contract) or an implied ( implicitly understood or derived from the circumstances) right to lay off an employee. If there is no clear indication of this right, the layoff may not be deemed acceptable under common law. Referencing Pham v. Qualified Metal Fabricators Ltd., The court determined that Mr. Webb had not condoned the layoff, as he did not take any positive action to accept it. Instead the employee had made timely inquiries about returning to work but was never recalled. Thus, Mr. Webb was constructively dismissed. Conclusion: Mr. Webb has proven that he was constructively dismissed at common law. He was awarded damages totaling $68,854.51. The court decision reinforces that layoffs are considered constructive dismissals, even if done in accordance with IDEL. In this case, the Superior Court told us again that putting someone on IDEL (Infectious Disease Emergency Leave) is allowed under the ESA but not under the common law.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help