Cohnstaedt v. University of Regina, (1989) 75 Sask.R. 211 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dube, and Sopinka, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 30, 1989
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1989), 75 Sask.R. 211 (SCC);1989 CanLII 88 (SCC);36 Admin LR 1;[1989] 3 WWR 682;[1989] 1 SCR 1011;26 CCEL 165;75 Sask R 211;57 DLR (4th) 641

Cohnstaedt v. Regina Univ. (1989), 75 Sask.R. 211 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

University of Regina v. Dr. Martin L. Cohnstaedt

(No. 19816)

Indexed As: Cohnstaedt v. University of Regina

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dube, and Sopinka, JJ.

April 27, 1989.

Summary:

A tenured university professor was dismissed from his employment. The professor sued the university for damages. The action was settled before trial by an agreement. Under the agreement the professor was to continue performing such duties as were assigned to him by the Deans and his work during this time was to be assessed by them; if the professor's performance was judged to be inadequate, then under the agreement he was obliged to take an early retirement. The Deans' assessment proved unsatisfactory and the university sought to enforce the retirement clause. The professor sued for a declaration that his termination was invalid and claimed salary and other damages. The professor also claimed that the procedure followed was in breach of the agreement. At the end of trial, the professor sought to amend his statement of claim to incorporate allegations that there was bias in the assessment process and that the Dean failed to act fairly towards him in assigning and assessing his work.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported in 45 Sask.R. 232, refused to allow the proposed amendment to the statement of claim, found that there was no breach of the agreement and dismissed the professor's action. The professor appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in a decision reported in [1987] 2 W.W.R. 1; 45 Sask.R. 197; 18 Admin. L.R. 1; 12 C.C.E.L. 265, allowed the appeal. The court held that the amendments to the statement of claim should have been granted. The Court of Appeal held that the rule of procedural fairness applied and found an implied term in the agreement that the professor would be assessed according to the usual factors for evaluating the work of a full-time professor. The majority of the Court of Appeal held that this implied term was breached by the university. The majority of the Court of Appeal held that the parties had agreed as to the appropriate amount of damages, namely, loss of salary and pension benefits, and awarded him that amount in damages. Hall, J.A., dissenting, in the Court of Appeal, would have allowed the appeal. The university appealed. The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part. The Supreme Court agreed that the university breached its agreement with the professor respecting the assessment of his performance. As a result the professor's employment was wrongfully terminated. The Supreme Court refused to discuss the arguments concerning natural justice and procedural fairness. The Court remitted the question of damages back to the trial judge for a determination of the appropriate award.

Education - Topic 4423

Universities - Professors - Wrongful dismissal - What constitutes - Breach of agreement to assess abilities - A tenured university professor sued for damages for wrongful dismissal - The action was settled before trial by an agreement under which the professor was to continue performing such duties as were assigned to him by the Deans and his work during this time was to be assessed by them; if the professor's performance was judged inadequate, then the professor would be obliged to take early retirement - The university sought to enforce the retirement clause after the Dean's assessment proved unsatisfactory - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the agreement implied that the professor would be assessed on the usual factors for evaluating the work of a full-time professor - The university breached the agreement by failing to assign the professor work of a kind as might reasonably be performed by a full professor - As a result, the actual assessment was invalid and the professor's termination of employment wrongful - See paragraphs 20 to 30.

Cases Noticed:

Kane v. Board of Governors of the University of British Columbia, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1105; 31 N.R. 214, refd to. [para. 18].

Nicholson v. Haldimand Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; 23 N.R. 410, refd to. [para. 18].

Counsel:

Gordon Kuski, Q.C., and Pamela Conkin, for the appellant;

John Beke, Q.C., for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

McDougall, Ready, Regina, Sask., for the appellant;

Balfour, Moss, Milliken, Laschuk & Kyle, Regina, Sask., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Dickson, C.J.C., Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada, on January 30, 1989. The decision of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on April 27, 1989, by L'Heureux-Dubé, J.