IRE430 Case Study Summaries

.docx

School

University of Toronto *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

IRE430

Subject

Law

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

8

Uploaded by JusticeSnakeMaster1415

Module 3 Queen v. Cognos Inc. - Queen had a job in Calgary but applied for a job with Cognos located in Ottawa - Cognos representative Johnston explained that the job included working on a new project but did not inform Queen that it was conditional on funding - Queen quit his job and moved to Ottawa and signed an employment contract that allowed Cognos to dismiss him for any reason with one month notice. Queen was dismissed 17 months later when the funding was not provided - Queen sued Cognos for negligent misrepresentation during the interview process - SCC ruled that negligent misrepresentation occurred, determining that Cognos did not follow their duty of care. Johnston’s representation made inaccurate statements to Queen and Queen relied on those statements to his detriment - Johnston knew the funding was conditional but did not tell Queen because he believed it would go through -> he needed to pass this important information to Queen - Johnston and Cognos had a duty of care to be honest in their representations and ensure that information is accurate and not misleading. Johnston failed to exercise reasonable duty of care and lead Queen to believe that the project was happening when it was conditional - SCC ruled in favor of Queen and ordered Cognos to pay $50,000 of lost income for one year of salary and an additional $5,000 for emotional stress and an extra $12,000 to reimburse the deficit Queen faced when selling his new house in Ottawa when he was dismissed Module 4 Lyons v. Multari 2000 - Lyons and Multari were surgeons. Lyons worked in Windsor for 25 years and hired Multari to work with him in the practice. - Multari signed an employment contract with a restrictive covenant clause prohibiting him from working as a surgeon within five miles of Lyon’s office for 3 years after employment contract - Multari quit after 17 months, and opened a practice 6 months later within the 5 mile radius. Lyons sued to enforce the restrictive covenant. - Court determined that the restrictive covenant was void and unenforceable. Lyons had a proprietary interest worthy of protection. The court also determined that a dental surgeon reliant on referrals, five mile and three year period is not unreasonable. However, the covenant failed the non-competition clause of a reasonable restrictive covenant. - Court ruled that Lyons should have used a less intrusive “non-solicitation” clause like telling Multari not to call Lyons clients over would have been more sufficient to protect Lyon’s interests and his relationships with regular referring dentists. Lloyd v. Imperial parking Ltd. - Lloyd quit his job at Imperial Parking after being subjected to months of verbal abuse and threats to his employment by a supervisor. He sued the employer for constructive dismissal, arguing that the employer’s abuse is a fundamental breach of the employment contract - The court ruled that the employer commited a breach. In the absence of cause, any breaches by the employer of a term in a employment relationship lets the employee sue for constructive dismissal.
- Breaches only exist if the breach is related to a fundamental term of the employment relationship. - Fundamental term: any term of employment relationship in that the employer will treat employees with civility, decency etc. This is a reasonable duty in all labour practices. - The court ruled that they needed to provide Lloyd four months of notice of termination and needed to pay damages for the four month period ($30,000). Francis v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce - Francis was given an offer of employment letter from CIBC June 9 1978 - The letter did not indicate notice of termination -> implied contract term requiring reasonable notice of termination. - On Francis’s first day, he was given a document that stated that CIBC could terminate him with three months of notice - Francis was dismissed and sued for wrongful dismissal - Francis argued that the notice clause in that agreement modified the clause in the original contract and received no new consideration - The change to the second document was unenforceable: - The court ruled that the modification granted the employer new benefits and nothing new within it benefited Francis. Therefore, they determined Francis was entitled to reasonable notice from the first contract and was entitled to 12 months of pay from the day he was dismissed Contract Proferentem: Doctrine that interprets whether or not expressed terms are applicable and how they are applied [Example: how last piece of cake is provided -> mother tells them to share, or tells kid to cut and tells another to choose the piece] Employer you make sure you write clear and accurate terms. - Initial Contract Creation - Expressed Contract Terms: Clear, written or said - Implied Terms: Inferred through history of law or behaviour or expectations -> fills in gaps of expressed terms -> very reasonable terms -> not written or discussed - Ancillary Terms: Additional documents/manuals - If the terms are not accurate and clear, the employee is given the favourable interpretation Module 5 Ceccol v. Ontario Gymnastic Federation - Ceccol worked for OGF for 16 years pursuant to 15 one-year term contracts (each contract stated one-year terms but was subject to renewal) After the 15th contract, Ceccol’s contract was not renewed and Ceccol sued for wrongful dismissal for failure to give reasonable notice - Court ruled that the contract was ambiguous because while the time listed was one year, other clauses indicated it could be more or less than one year. Ceccol believed she was being employed fulltime by OGF and not for a one-year fixed contract. - Court of Appeal concluded that the fixed contracts are legal if the terms are clear but the contract was not clear. Court ruled that the contract was for an indefinite term and subject to renewal and found that Ceccol should have received 16 months of reasonable notice Machtinger v. HOJ Industries Ltd. - Worked for HOJ for 8 - 10 years, signed agreement that not much notice was needed (only given 4 weeks of pay)
- SCC Agrees that the illegal cause is void and demanded reasonable notice (10 months' pay) Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd. ONTARIO HIGH COURT - Main point about case: REASONABLE NOTICE -> establishes how to calculate wrongful dismissal - Most important common law case -> very influential for typical cases - Bardal was an advertising manager with 16.5 years of service when his contract was terminated - > let go without cause - His employment contract did not mention how much notice was required to terminate the employment contract - Believed that revenues were low because advertising was subpar - Employers tried to get him to resign but ultimately terminated him with a letter the next day - Court ruled that one year of reasonable notice was required due to how long he was employed with Globe & Mail - Bardal Factors: the character of the employment, length of service, age of servant, and availability of similar employment - How much notice is required for you to find a job? -> dependant on the economy, job market etc. McKinley v. BC Tel - McKinley suffered from high blood pressure and his doctor instructed him to take leave - Doctor told McKinley that if he takes a beta blocker he could go back to work - McKinley did not tell his employer and asked BC Tel for a less stressful job - BC Tel terminated his contract because he did not disclose the doctor’s advice - The court ruled that this dishonesty was not serious enough for dismissal and rejected cases that stated any dishonesty was cause for summary dismissal. - The SCC applied a principle of proportionality that requires a balance between misconduct and the sanction imposed. While McKinley wasn’t honest, he did not rise to the level of dishonesty inconsistent with the employment relationship and was awarded 26 months of reasonable notice Kelly v. Linamar Corporation - Kelly was a long-service well-respected management employee and was arrested for possession of child pornography. The employer dismissed Kelly but Kelly sued for wrongful dismissal - The court found that the arrest warranted summary dismissal because it threatened the employer’s business interests and the employer’s image as an advocate of children’s organizations. Module 6 Farber v. Royal Trust Co. - Farber was employed at Royal Trust Co. as a regional manager for western Quebec - Supervised 21 offices and 400+ employees - The employer restructured and removed the job and offered Farber his old manager job and told him that his pay is based on commission and compensation would be cut in half - Farber sued for constructive dismissal - The branch he was offered did better than expected and if he stayed he would not have suffered any losses
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