Genyk v. H & R Block (Canada) Ltd. and Irving, (1980) 5 Man.R.(2d) 123 (CoCt)

• Court: Provincial Court of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: March 31, 1980
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1980), 5 Man.R.(2d) 123 (CoCt)

Genyk v. H&R Block (1980), 5 Man.R.(2d) 123 (CoCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Genyk v. H&R Block (Canada) Limited and Irving

Indexed As: Genyk v. H & R Block (Canada) Ltd. and Irving

Manitoba County Court

Ferg, C.C.J.

March 31, 1980.

Summary:

This case arose out of the plaintiff's action for damages for wrongful dismissal. The plaintiff was hired as a tax return preparer for H&R Block, but was almost immediately given the position of supervisor of a branch office. The plaintiff was rather highstrung and hung up the telephone on an irate customer, who was being very abusive. The plaintiff was dismissed and brought an action for damages for wrongful dismissal.

The Manitoba County Court allowed the action and held that the plaintiff was dismissed without cause.

Master and Servant - Topic 7500

Dismissal of employees - General - The Manitoba County Court stated that, while no employer is obliged to retain an employee under a contract of indefinite hiring with whom he is not satisfied for any reason whatsoever, such employee may not be dismissed without reasonable notice unless there is just ground for dismissal - The Court of Queen's Bench stated that the particular act justifying dismissal without notice must depend upon the character of the act itself, upon the duties of the employee and upon the nature of the possible consequences of the act - See paragraphs 9 to 12.

Master and Servant - Topic 7502

Dismissal of employees - What constitutes - The Manitoba County Court held that the removal by an employer of an employee from a supervisor's position with an offer to give the employee a lesser position constituted dismissal from the supervisor's position - See paragraph 13.

Master and Servant - Topic 7553

Dismissal of employees - Grounds - Misconduct or misconduct of business - A plaintiff was hired as a tax return preparer for H&R Block and was almost immediately given the position of supervisor of a branch office - The plaintiff was rather high-strung and on one occasion hung up the telephone on an irate customer, who was being very abusive - The plaintiff was dismissed, because of his treatment of the customer - The Manitoba County Court allowed the plaintiff's action for damages for wrongful dismissal and held that the plaintiff's conduct was not inconsistent with the due and faithful discharge of his duties and did not warrant summary dismissal - See paragraphs 14 to 16.

Master and Servant - Topic 7701

Dismissal of employees - Damages for wrongful dismissal - General - The Manitoba County Court held that the measure for damages for wrongful dismissal was the amount which the employee would have earned during the period of reasonable notice less whatever amount be earned during that period - See paragraph 17.

Master and Servant - Topic 7704

Dismissal of employees - Damages for wrongful dismissal - Measure of damages - The plaintiff was hired in January for four months employment - He was dismissed without cause after three months before he had worked long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance - The Manitoba County Court allowed the plaintiff's action for damages for wrongful dismissal and included in damages the amount of unemployment insurance which the plaintiff would have received, had he worked long enough to qualify - See paragraph 19.

Cases Noticed:

Warren v. Super Drug Markets (1965), 53 W.W.R.(N.S.) 25, appld. [para. 10].

Olson v. Motor Coach Industries Ltd., [1974] 4 W.W.R. 634, appld. [para. 11].

Pearce v. Foster (1886), 17 Q.B.C. 536, appld. [para. 11].

Caws v. London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers) Ltd., [1959] 1 W.L.R. 698; [1959] 2 All E.R. 285, appld. [para. 11].

Gardner v. Rockwell International of Canada Ltd. (1976), 9 O.R.(2d) 105, appld. [para. 17].

Stilwell v. Audio Pictures Limited, [1955] O.W.N. 793, appld. [para. 17].

Counsel:

V. Libitka and V. Janicki, for the plaintiff;

P. Guy and B. Shelly, for the defendants.

This case was heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba, before FERG, C.C.J., of the Manitoba County Court, who delivered the following judgment on March 31, 1980: