Adams v. Comark Inc., (1992) 81 Man.R.(2d) 119 (CA)

• Judge: Scott, C.J.M., Philp and Lyon, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: June 30, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1992), 81 Man.R.(2d) 119 (CA)

Adams v. Comark Inc. (1992), 81 Man.R.(2d) 119 (CA);

    30 W.A.C. 119

MLB headnote and full text

Michael Adams (plaintiff/appellant) v. Comark Inc. (defendant/respondent)

(Suit No. AI 91-30-00550)

Indexed As: Adams v. Comark Inc.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Scott, C.J.M., Philp and Lyon, JJ.A.

June 30, 1992.

Summary:

An employee brought an action for dam­ages against his employer for wrongful dismissal. The employer alleged cause for dismissal.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported 77 Man.R.(2d) 35, dismissed the employee's action. The employee appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The court held that the employee was wrongfully dismissed and awarded damages equal to that agreed upon by the parties.

Master and Servant - Topic 1151

Employment contract - Implied terms - General - Adams held a responsible, travel intensive position with a family owned business - The business was acquired by an international company with stricter management controls - A written code of conduct was produced - Although warned of the consequences, Adams refused to sign the document, submitting that it uni­laterally altered fundamental terms of his employment (e.g., no longer entitled to personal use of frequent flyer points earned while flying on company business) - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that personal use of frequent flyer points had become a term of Adams' employment contract - Adams' refusal to accept a uni­lateral change did not justify dismissal - Accordingly, Adams was dismissed with­out cause and was entitled to reason­able notice.

Master and Servant - Topic 7554

Dismissal of employees - Grounds - Wilful disobedience - [See Master and Servant - Topic 1151 ].

Cases Noticed:

Campbell v. MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., [1978] 2 W.W.R. 686 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

Rose v. Shell Canada Ltd. (1985), 7 C.C.E.L. 234 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

Poole v. Tomenson Saunders Whitehead Ltd. (1987), 43 D.L.R.(4th) 56 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Schwann v. Husky Oil Operations Ltd. (1989), 76 Sask.R. 97; 27 C.C.E.L. 103 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Nole, Wrongful Dismissal Practice Manual (1984), vol. 1, paras. 3.23 to 3.26 [para. 22].

Levitt, The Law of Dismissal in Canada (1985), para. 407.3 [para. 22].

Counsel:

D.A. Primeau and J.E.D. Ketchen, for the appellant;

W.L. Ritchie, Q.C., W.J. Burnett and M.L. Harrison, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 4, 1992, before Scott, C.J.M., Philp and Lyon, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

On June 30, 1992, Philp, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.