Bell v. Stanley Industrial Consultants Ltd. et al., (1996) 188 A.R. 53 (QB)

• Judge: Fruman, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 06, 1996
• Citations: (1996), 188 A.R. 53 (QB)

Bell v. Stanley Ind. Consultants Ltd. (1996), 188 A.R. 53 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Malcolm Bell (plaintiff) v. Stanley Industrial Consultants Ltd. and Stanley Associates Engineering Ltd. (defendants)

(Action No. 9401-15740)

Indexed As: Bell v. Stanley Industrial Consultants Ltd. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Fruman, J.

June 6, 1996.

Summary:

Bell commenced employment as an elec­trical engineer with Winkelaar, Howard & Associates Ltd. in 1977. In 1989, Wink­elaar's shares were purchased by Stanley. In April 1989, Stanley made Bell an employ­ment offer, by letter, which limited the period of notice for termination to a formula, with a maximum notice of three months. The letter was never signed by Bell. In 1993, Bell's employment was terminated with six weeks' notice. Bell sought damages for wrongful dis­missal. Stanley argued that the letter to Bell limiting the notice period to a maxi­mum of three months was effective.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the letter purporting to limit the notice period did not apply. The court awarded Bell 12 months' notice in lieu of damages.

Master and Servant - Topic 1002

Contract of hiring (employment contract) - What constitutes - [See first and second Master and Servant - Topic 8003 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 7704

Dismissal of employees - Damages for wrongful dismissal - Measure of damages for wrongful dismissal - [See third and fourth Master and Servant - Topic 8003 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 8000

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

Master and Servant - Topic 8003

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dis­missal - Reasonable notice - Consider­ations affecting - Bell commenced em­ployment as an electrical engineer with Winkelaar, Howard & Associates Ltd. in 1977 - In 1989, Winkelaar's shares were purchased by Stanley - In April 1989, Stanley made Bell an employment offer, by letter, which limited the period of notice for termination to a formula, with a maximum notice of three months - The letter was never signed by Bell - In 1993, Bell's employment was terminated with six weeks' notice - Bell sought damages for wrongful dis­missal - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed Bell's claim stating that the letter purporting to limit the notice period did not apply where Stanley failed to establish that Bell accepted the termina­tion provisions outlined in the letter - See paragraphs 1 to 32.

Master and Servant - Topic 8003

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dis­missal - Reasonable notice - Consider­ations affecting - Bell commenced em­ployment as an electrical engineer with Winkelaar, Howard & Associates Ltd. in 1977 - In 1989, Winkelaar's shares were purchased by Stanley - In April 1989, Stanley made Bell an employment offer, by letter, which limited the notice period for termination to a formula, with a maxi­mum notice of three months - The letter was never signed by Bell - In 1993, Bell's employment was terminated with six weeks' notice - Bell sought damages for wrongful dis­missal - Stanley argued that the letter to Bell limiting the notice period was effective - Particularly, Stanley asserted that by continuing to work and accepting the advantages of employment with Stanley, Bell tacitly consented to the letter's terms - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected Stanley's argument where Bell received very few advantages resulting from Stanley's share purchase - See paragraphs 1 to 32.

Master and Servant - Topic 8003

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dis­missal - Reasonable notice - Consider­ations affecting - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench referred to Bagby v. Gus­tavson International Drilling Co. Ltd. where the Court of Appeal outlined the following elements for determination of a reasonable notice period for dismissal without cause: "the age of the employee, the length of service, the managerial char­acter of the employment, the expertise acquired by the employee and the condi­tions in the industry which made it more or less likely that comparative positions would be available" - In Gustavson, the court further noted that when applying these factors, the conclusion on the appro­priate notice period was a matter of judg­ment on which opinions may vary - "There is no formula to be derived from precedent" - See paragraphs 33, 34.

Master and Servant - Topic 8003

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dis­missal - Reasonable notice - Consider­ations affecting - Bell commenced em­ployment as an electrical engineer with Winkelaar, Howard & Associates Ltd. in 1977 - In 1989, Winkelaar's shares were purchased by Stanley - In April 1989, Stanley made Bell an employment offer, by letter, which limited the notice period for termination to a formula, with a maxi­mum notice of three months - The letter was never signed by Bell - In 1993, Bell's employment was terminated with six weeks' notice - Bell sought damages for wrongful dis­missal - Stanley argued that the letter to Bell limiting the notice period was effective - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected Stanley's argument and held that Bell was entitled to 12 months' salary, plus benefits in lieu of reasonable notice.

Cases Noticed:

Sorel v. Tomenson Saunders Whitehead Ltd. (1987), 16 C.C.E.L. 23 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 22].

Addison v. Loeb (M.) Ltd. (1986), 13 O.A.C. 392; 11 C.C.E.L. 100 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Rahemtulla v. Vanfed Credit Union, [1984] 3 W.W.R. 296 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Brode v. Fitzwright Co. (1992), 41 C.C.E.L. 298 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

Starcevich v. Woodward's Ltd. (1991), 58 B.C.L.R.(2d) 254 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

King v. Solna Offset of Canada Ltd. (1984), 3 O.A.C. 178 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd. (1960), 24 D.L.R.(2d) 140 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Bagby v. Gustavson International Drilling Co. et al. (1980), 24 A.R. 181 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Lazarowicz v. Orenda Engines Ltd., [1961] O.R. 141 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Heinz v. Cana Construction Co. (1987), 82 A.R. 197; 55 Alta. L.R.(2d) 382 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 37].

Bohemier v. Storwal International Inc. (1982), 40 O.R.(2d) 264 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 37].

Christianson v. North Hill News Inc. (1993), 145 A.R. 58; 55 W.A.C. 58; 13 Alta. L.R.(3d) 78 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Counsel:

P.J. McGovern, for the plaintiff;

J.D. Blair, for the defendants.

This action was heard by Fruman, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the fol­lowing decision on June 6, 1996.