Arnone v. Best Theratronics Ltd., (2015) 329 O.A.C. 284 (CA)

• Judge: Strathy, C.J.O., Laskin and Brown, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: January 09, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2015), 329 O.A.C. 284 (CA);2015 ONCA 63

Arnone v. Best Theratronics Ltd. (2015), 329 O.A.C. 284 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. JA.040

Matthew Arnone (plaintiff/respondent) v. Best Theratronics Ltd. (defendant/appellant)

(C59181; 2015 ONCA 63)

Indexed As: Arnone v. Best Theratronics Ltd.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Strathy, C.J.O., Laskin and Brown, JJ.A.

February 2, 2015.

Summary:

When his employment was terminated without cause, Arnone had been employed by the defendant for 31 years. Arnone sued for wrongful dismissal.

The Ontario Superior Court granted Arnone's motion for summary judgment and ordered the defendant to pay (i) damages equal to the gross amount of the salary Arnone would have earned until he qualified for an unreduced pension, less payments made to him to satisfy statutory obligations; (ii) $65,000, representing the present value of the loss of an unreduced pension; (iii) a retirement allowance equal to 30 weeks' pay; and (iv) costs totaling $52,280.09. Arnone appealed and the defendant cross-appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed Arnone's appeal in part by increasing the period of reasonable notice to 22 months (reduced by the statutory payments made by the defendant and income earned by Arnone during the notice period). The cross-appeal was allowed in part by setting aside the costs order and remitting the issue to the motion judge for determination.

Contracts - Topic 2051

Terms - Implied terms - General - [See second Damage Awards - Topic 1454 ].

Damage Awards - Topic 1454

Contracts - Employment contracts - Wrongful dismissal - When his employment was terminated without cause, Arnone had been employed by the defendant for 31 years - Arnone sued for wrongful dismissal - A motion judge granted Arnone's motion for summary judgment and ordered the defendant to pay, inter alia, damages equal to the gross amount of the salary Arnone would have earned until he qualified for an unreduced pension, less payments made to him to satisfy statutory obligations - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed Arnone's appeal - As Arnone had appropriately conceded, the motion judge had erred in setting the period of reasonable notice at 16.8 months, which was the period of time needed to "bridge" Arnone's entitlement to a full pension - Damages for wrongful dismissal compensated an employee for the breach of the implied obligation in the employment contract to give reasonable notice of an intention to terminate the relationship in the absence of just cause and were confined to the loss suffered as a result of the failure to give proper notice, measured by the loss of wages and salary and other benefits, that would have been earned during the reasonable notice period - However, the motion judge made an alternative finding that a reasonable notice period otherwise would be 22 months (reduced by the statutory payments made by the defendant and income earned by Arnone during the notice period) - This fell within an acceptable range of notice periods for employees in circumstances similar to Arnone's - See paragraphs 14 to 19.

Damage Awards - Topic 1454

Contracts - Employment contracts - Wrongful dismissal - When his employment was terminated without cause, Arnone had been employed by the defendant for 31 years - Arnone sued for wrongful dismissal - A motion judge granted Arnone's motion for summary judgment and ordered the defendant to pay, inter alia, a retirement allowance equal to 30 weeks' pay - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal - The determination of whether a contract of employment entitled an employee to the receipt of a retirement allowance where his employment had been terminated without cause was an inherently-fact specific exercise - Here, Arnone's contract of employment provided that he would receive a retirement allowance of one week for each year of service up to 30 weeks - Both parties clearly benefited from that term, which gave employees an incentive to remain with the company for a long time and gave them a monetary benefit that grew over time and would be available on retirement - From that operation of the retirement allowance came an implied term that an employee who was terminated without cause would be entitled to payment of the accumulated retirement allowance in consideration of long service and fidelity to the company - In the absence of a written term to the contrary, effect had to be given to that implied term - See paragraphs 20 to 29.

Damage Awards - Topic 1454

Contracts - Employment contracts - Wrongful dismissal - When his employment was terminated without cause, Arnone had been employed by the defendant for 31 years - Arnone sued for wrongful dismissal - A motion judge granted Arnone's motion for summary judgment and ordered the defendant to pay, inter alia, $65,000, representing the present value of the loss of an unreduced pension - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the motion judge had not erred in awarding Arnone compensation to replace the loss of his pension benefits during the notice period - The award was consistent with the principle that a terminated employee was entitled to claim damages for the loss of pension benefits that would have accrued had the employee worked until the end of the notice period, unless some contractual term limited that right - No evidence of such a limit was before the motion judge - See paragraphs 30 to 32.

Damages - Topic 6703

Contracts - Employment relationship or contract - General principles - Wrongful dismissal - [See first and third Damage Awards - Topic 1454 ].

Damages - Topic 6745

Contracts - Employment relationship or contract - For breach by employer - Loss of pension benefits - [See third Damage Awards - Topic 1454 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 1960

Remuneration - Pension or retirement benefits - On dismissal - [See second and third Damage Awards - Topic 1454 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 7704

Dismissal of employees - Damages for wrongful dismissal - Measure of damages for wrongful dismissal - [See all Damage Awards - Topic 1454 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 7716

Dismissal or discipline of employees - Damages for wrongful dismissal - Deductions - Earnings during notice period - [See first Damage Awards - Topic 1454 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 8000

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dismissal - What constitutes reasonable notice - [See first Damage Awards - Topic 1454 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 8003

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dismissal - Reasonable notice - Considerations affecting - Character of employment - When his employment was terminated without cause, Arnone had been employed by the defendant for 31 years - Arnone sued for wrongful dismissal - A motion judge granted Arnone's motion for summary judgment - The defendant appealed, asserting, inter alia, that the motion judge had erred in granting summary judgment because a genuine issue existed regarding the character of Arnone's employment - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed this ground of appeal - Arnone had conceded for the summary judgment motion that he was a supervisor, not a manager - The motion judge described the defendant's characterizations of Arnone's responsibilities as "subtle distinctions" that would not affect Arnone's entitlement to a 17 month period of reasonable notice - Those findings of fact were amply supported - Further, a "straight-forward claim for wrongful dismissal without cause" such as this one was "the type of case usually amenable to a Rule 20 summary judgment motion" - See paragraphs 6 to 13.

Master and Servant - Topic 8007.1

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dismissal - Reasonable notice - Management vs. non-management employees - [See Master and Servant - Topic 8003 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 8061

Dismissal without cause - Damages - General - [See all Damage Awards - Topic 1454 ].

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Jurisdiction or when available or when appropriate - [See Master and Servant - Topic 8003 ].

Cases Noticed:

Hryniak v. Mauldin, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87; 453 N.R. 51; 314 O.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 5, footnote 1].

Bardal v. Globe and Mail Ltd. (1960), 24 D.L.R.(2d) 140 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 6, footnote 3].

Thorne v. Hudson's Bay Co., [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 6010; 96 C.C.E.L.(3d) 35; 2011 ONSC 6010, dist. [para. 9, footnote 4].

Keays v. Honda Canada Inc., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 362; 376 N.R. 196; 239 O.A.C. 299; 2008 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 11, footnote 5].

Di Tomaso v. Crown Metal Packaging Canada LP (2011), 282 O.A.C. 134; 2011 ONCA 469, refd to. [para. 11, footnote 6].

Taggart v. Canada Life Assurance Co., [2005] O.T.C. 102; 45 C.C.P.B. 138 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 7].

Minott v. O'Shanter Development Co. (1999), 117 O.A.C. 1; 42 O.R.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 9].

Creston Moly Corp. v. Sattva Capital Corp. (2014), 461 N.R. 335; 358 B.C.A.C. 1; 614 W.A.C. 1; 373 D.L.R.(4th) 393; 2014 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 23, footnote 11].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 23, footnote 11].

Moody v. Lafarge Canada Inc., 2000 BCSC 1847, refd to. [para. 27, footnote 12].

Counsel:

Frank Cesario and Siobhan O'Brien, for the appellant;

Christopher Rootham, for the respondent.

This appeal and cross-appeal were heard on January 9, 2015, by Strathy, C.J.O., Laskin and Brown, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Brown, J.A., released the following reasons for judgment for the court on February 2, 2015.