Baker v. Vecima Networks Inc., (2011) 384 Sask.R. 48 (QB)

• Judge: Allbright, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: October 06, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2011), 384 Sask.R. 48 (QB);2011 SKQB 368

Baker v. Vecima Networks Inc. (2011), 384 Sask.R. 48 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] Sask.R. TBEd. NO.003

Geoff Baker (plaintiff) v. Vecima Networks Inc. (defendant)

(2007 Q.B.G. No. 1572; 2011 SKQB 368)

Indexed As: Baker v. Vecima Networks Inc.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Allbright, J.

October 6, 2011.

Summary:

On April 30, 2007, an engineering technologist was dismissed without cause after 4.5 years' employment. He was given one month's notice. The technologist finished his engineering degree and was now employed at a higher salary. A summary trial was directed respecting the nature and quantum of damages. Particularly at issue was the length of reasonable notice and the technologist's entitlement to "Wallace damages" for the manner of his dismissal.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the appropriate period of reasonable notice was five months. The manner in which the technologist was treated during his employment and at his termination was not sufficiently egregious conduct to warrant "Wallace damages".

Damages - Topic 1326

Exemplary or punitive damages - Wrongful dismissal - [See Master and Servant - Topic 8003 ].

Damages - Topic 6748

Contracts - Employment relationship or contract - For breach by employer - Loss of holiday or vacation pay - A wrongfully dismissed employee was found entitled to five months' pay in lieu of reasonable notice - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the employee was not entitled to vacation pay accumulating during the notice period - See paragraphs 31, 42.

Master and Servant - Topic 7712

Dismissal of employees - Damages for wrongful dismissal - Punitive or vindictive damages - [See Master and Servant - Topic 8003 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 8000

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dismissal - What constitutes reasonable notice - [See Master and Servant - Topic 8003 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 8003

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dismissal - Reasonable notice - Considerations affecting (Wallace damages) - An engineering technologist was dismissed without cause after 4.5 years' employment - He was given one month's pay in lieu of notice - The technologist finished his engineering degree, obtained his professional designation and was now employed, at a higher salary, as an engineer - A summary trial was directed respecting damages, particularly the appropriate period of reasonable notice and the technologist's entitlement to "Wallace damages" for the manner of his dismissal - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench fixed the period of reasonable notice at five months - The technologist was not entitled to "Wallace damages" - The court stated that "in order for an employee to successfully claim additional damages as a result of the manner of the dismissal, that employee must firstly prove that he or she has experienced additional suffering as a result of the manner of the dismissal and that such an award of damages would be considered as an independent head of damages rather than adding to the period of required notice for the terminated employee" - There was no conduct on the employer's part that could be characterized as so malicious or outrageous that it deserved punishment on its own terms - Cause was not alleged - The disagreements between the technologist and the employer that led to dismissal did not extend beyond the normal disagreements found in many working circumstances - See paragraphs 45 to 55.

Cases Noticed:

Stewart v. Aim Supply Ltd. (2004), 245 Sask.R. 245; 2004 SKQB 56, refd to. [para. 31].

Herbison v. Intercontinental Packers Ltd. (1983), 29 Sask.R. 296 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Henderson v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada Inc. (1996), 146 Sask.R. 127 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

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. 36].

Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 701; 219 N.R. 161; 123 Man.R.(2d) 1; 159 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 46].

Fox v. Silver Sage Housing Corp. (2008), 319 Sask.R. 179; 2008 SKQB 321, refd to. [para. 49].

Hiltz v. Saskatchewan Property Management Corp. and Quennell (1993), 112 Sask.R. 297 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 52].

Counsel:

Geoff Baker, on his own behalf;

Sean M. Sinclair, for the defendant.

This matter was heard before Allbright, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on October 6, 2011.