Amos v. Alberta et al., (1995) 166 A.R. 146 (QB)

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 02, 1995
• Citations: (1995), 166 A.R. 146 (QB)

Amos v. Alta. (1995), 166 A.R. 146 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Steve David Amos (plaintiff) v. Her Majesty The Queen in the Province of Alberta, Robbert Jasperse, David H. Rehill, Wilma Haas, Barry Mitchelson, Savrottam Varma (defendants)

(Action No. 8903-09591)

Indexed As: Amos v. Alberta et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

February 17, 1995.

Summary:

An employee was terminated for gross insubordination for refusing to do a job assigned by his supervisor. The employee sued for wrongful dismissal.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dis­missed the action.

Master and Servant - Topic 7554

Dismissal of employees - Grounds - Wilful disobedience or insubordination - A senior government employee refused to do a job assigned by his supervisor - The job was within his position description and within his skill and experience - He was warned that refusal to do the work would lead to disciplinary action - The employee claimed that he refused because he believed that his supervisor was unethi­cal and he had lost trust in his supervisor - The employee was termin­ated for gross insub­ordination - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the employer had just cause for terminat­ing the employee - The court held that one inci­dent of insub­ordi­nation was sufficient in this case.

Master and Servant - Topic 7554

Dismissal of employees - Grounds - Wilful disobedience or insubordination - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that one instance of insubordination was usually not sufficient to summarily fire an employee - However, one incident could be enough if: the insubordination was grave; it consisted of wilful and deliberate dis­obedi­ence of an order; the rules were clearly communicated and made known to the employee and were consistently enforced; the work order was lawful and reasonable in content and came within the employee's scope of duties; the employee was made aware, un­equivocally, that dis­cipline was the penalty for disobedience; the employee had no rea­sonable excuse; and the breach was serious - See para­graphs 51 and 61.

Cases Noticed:

Green v. Nelson Burns (1986), 87 C.L.L.C. 14,016 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

Durand v. Quaker Oats (1990), 45 B.C.L.R.(2d) 354 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Port Arthur Shipbuilding v. Arthurs, [1969] S.C.R. 485, refd to. [para. 7].

Hardie v. Trans-Canada Resources Ltd. (1976), 2 A.R. 289; 71 D.L.R.(3d) 668 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Latta v. Acme Cheese Co. (1923), 25 O.W.N. 195 (C.A.), reving. 23 O.W.N. 611 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Clare v. Morre Corp. (1989), 29 C.C.E.L. 41, refd to. [para. 7].

Holden v. Metro Transit (1983), 1 C.C.E.L. 159 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

Belliveau v. Dylex (1987), 79 N.B.R.(2d) 141; 201 A.P.R. 141 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 7].

Boyes v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (1982), 18 Sask.R. 361 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

Mellquist v. Lake of the Rivers (Rural Municipality) (1987), 62 Sask.R. 165 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

Keighan v. Kool-Fire (1989), 6 C.C.E.L. 196 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

MacFarlane v. Westfair Foods Ltd. (1994), 158 A.R. 267 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

MacNeil v. Ronscott Inc. (1988), 22 C.C.E.L. 89 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [paras. 8, 84].

Parks v. Marshall (H.H.) Ltd. (1984), 62 N.S.R.(2d) 172; 136 A.P.R. 172 (T.D.), refd to. [paras. 8, 84].

Rajakaruna v. Peel (Regional Municipality) (1981), 10 A.C.W.S.(2d) 522 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 8, 84].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ellen E. Mole, Wrongful Dismissal Prac­tice Manual (1990), generally [para. 7].

Counsel:

S.D. Amos on his own behalf;

L.H. Merryweather, for the defendants.

This case was heard on January 13 to February 2, 1995, before Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on February 17, 1995.