Coppola v. Capital Pontiac Buick Cadillac GMC Ltd., 2011 SKQB 318

• Judge: Chicoine, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: August 31, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2011 SKQB 318;(2011), 382 Sask.R. 125 (QB)

Coppola v. Capital Pontiac Buick (2011), 382 Sask.R. 125 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] Sask.R. TBEd. SE.042

Sergio Coppola (plaintiff) v. Capital Pontiac Buick Cadillac GMC Ltd. (defendant)

(2003 QBG No. 208; 2011 SKQB 318)

Indexed As: Coppola v. Capital Pontiac Buick Cadillac GMC Ltd.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Chicoine, J.

August 31, 2011.

Summary:

Coppola sued Capital Pontiac Buick Cadillac GMC Ltd. for unjust dismissal. In addition to loss of salary and benefits, Coppola also claimed damages for loss of reputation and mental distress because of allegations of wrongdoing made by his former employer some time after he was terminated. Capital Pontiac took the position that it had provided Coppola with fair compensation upon his release from employment and specifically denied any harsh or vindictive conduct subsequent to his termination.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that Coppola ought to have received six months' notice prior to termination. The balance payable as pay in lieu of notice was $66,384.74. In addition, Capital Pontiac was ordered to pay $1,650 for loss of the vehicle benefit during the reasonable notice period. Finally, Capital Pontiac was ordered to pay $20,000 in aggravated damages.

Damage Awards - Topic 1454

Contracts - Employment contracts - Wrongful dismissal - [See Master and Servant - Topic 7704 ].

Damage Awards - Topic 2411

Aggravated damages - Wrongful dismissal - [See Master and Servant - Topic 8063 ].

Damages - Topic 1326

Exemplary or punitive damages - Wrongful dismissal - [See Master and Servant - Topic 7712 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 7704

Dismissal of employees - Damages for wrongful dismissal - Measure of - The plaintiff was earning the equivalent of $154,526.16 per year or $12,877.18 per month at the time of his wrongful dismissal - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the plaintiff ought to have received six months' notice prior to termination - The amount of salary he would have earned during the six month reasonable notice period was $77,263.08 - He received $8,535.76 representing two weeks' notice pursuant to the Labour Standards Act - Also to be deducted was the amount that he earned during the reasonable notice period ($2,342.58) - The balance payable by the defendant as pay in lieu of notice was $66,384.74 - In addition, the defendant was ordered to pay $1,650 for loss of the vehicle benefit during the reasonable notice period - Finally, the defendant was also ordered to pay $20,000 in aggravated damages - See paragraphs 81 to 84.

Master and Servant - Topic 7707

Dismissal of employees - Damages for wrongful dismissal - Mental distress - [See Master and Servant - Topic 8063 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 7712

Dismissal of employees - Damages for wrongful dismissal - Punitive or vindictive damages - Coppola sued Capital Pontiac for unjust dismissal - In addition to loss of salary and benefits, Coppola asked for punitive damages because of allegations of dishonest and/or fraudulent conduct made by Capital Pontiac some time after he was terminated - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that this was not a case which called for the imposition of punitive damages - "The threshold issue is whether Capital Pontiac's conduct in dismissal was so outrageous that punitive damages are necessary for the purpose of deterrence, denunciation and retribution ... Significant compensatory damages have already been awarded under the headings of pay in lieu of notice and aggravated damages. These awards are, in my opinion, adequate to achieve the objectives of retribution, deterrence and denunciation" - See paragraphs 72 and 73.

Master and Servant - Topic 7713

Dismissal of employees - Damages for wrongful dismissal - Aggravated damages - [See Master and Servant - Topic 8063 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 8000

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dismissal - Reasonable notice - What constitutes - The plaintiff sued the defendant for unjust dismissal - An issue was whether the defendant had paid the proper amount of pay in lieu of notice - The defendant's President and CEO testified at the trial that he was unaware at the time that he terminated the plaintiff that the two week notice requirement set out in the Saskatchewan Labour Standards Act for employees with less than three years' service was only the minimum amount of notice for all employees, or that employees such as the plaintiff who occupied management positions would normally be entitled to considerably more notice under well established common law principles - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench began its analysis by reviewing "some of the more important court decisions which discuss the criteria for determining the period of reasonable notice in cases such as this" - See paragraphs 32 and 33.

Master and Servant - Topic 8000

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dismissal - Reasonable notice - What constitutes - In this case, the plaintiff was terminated without cause and without reasonable notice - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "while an employer is entitled to terminate an employee without cause, there is an implied term in the employee's contract of employment that the employer will give the employee proper notice of termination, during which the employee will continue to work under the terms and conditions of his contract. Alternatively, an employer can terminate an employee without cause, but without proper notice. This, however, constitutes a wrongful dismissal, in breach of the employment contract. In these circumstances, the employer is obligated to compensate for the breach by making a payment to the employee in lieu of notice" - In this case, the court held that the attempt to compensate the plaintiff for the lack of reasonable notice by payment of the equivalent of two weeks' salary was "totally inadequate" - Thus, it fell to the court to determine what the period of reasonable notice should have been - See paragraphs 34 and 35.

Master and Servant - Topic 8000

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dismissal - Reasonable notice - What constitutes - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench set out the four factors to be considered in assessing what constituted reasonable notice - Those four factors were adopted and applied by the Supreme Court of Canada in Wallace, and more recently in Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays (2008) - "It is the approach which has been followed in a myriad of cases in this jurisdiction" - The court referred to four examples of cases where factors other than the relatively short length of service resulted in significant length of notice requirements - Three of those were from the Ontario Court of Appeal and the other was a recent decision of this court - See paragraphs 36 to 47.

Master and Servant - Topic 8000

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dismissal - Reasonable notice - What constitutes - The plaintiff was 36 years old when he was hired as a car salesperson for the defendant on August 8, 2000 - On June 28, 2002, he was dismissed without cause - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the plaintiff ought to have received six months' notice prior to termination - Given the plaintiff's experience and qualifications in automotive sales and financing, and his ability to quickly translate his personal attributes into a successful sales career within a short period of time (as evidenced by the substantial salary and commissions he was earning at the time of his dismissal), the court placed the plaintiff into the category of a senior or higher-ranking employee deserving of a longer period of notice of dismissal despite his relatively short period of employment - See paragraphs 48 and 49.

Master and Servant - Topic 8063

Dismissal without cause - Damages - Mental distress - The plaintiff was dismissed without cause by the defendant - An issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to receive an amount by way of aggravated damages for loss of reputation or mental distress - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench considered the law regarding the awarding of damages beyond compensation for breach of the contract for failure to give reasonable notice, as clarified by the Supreme Court of Canada in Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays (2008) - Before proceeding to an analysis of examples of conduct in dismissal which might result in an award of compensation, the court first made it clear that it was not its intent only to examine the conduct of the defendant at the moment of dismissal, as "the court is also entitled to consider acts of the employer before and after termination" - In the end result, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to "a substantial award for aggravated damages for mental distress caused by the false allegation of dishonest and/or fraudulent conduct following his wrongful dismissal ... [A] reasonable award for aggravated damages in this case is $20,000.00" - See paragraphs 51 to 71.

Master and Servant - Topic 8064

Dismissal without cause - Damages - Mitigation - The plaintiff was 36 years old when he was hired as a car salesperson for the defendant on August 8, 2000 - On June 28, 2002, he was dismissed without cause - He obtained employment with another automobile dealer for a short period of time following his dismissal - He also made enquiries of other automobile dealers but was unable to find similar employment - Within weeks of his dismissal, he took steps to establish a mortgage brokerage business with another individual - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench found that failure to mitigate was not an issue in this case - The steps which the plaintiff took to establish a mortgage brokerage business was entirely reasonable in the circumstances given his experience in sales and financing - In any event, no evidence was presented by the defendant that similar positions would have been available to the plaintiff at similar rates of pay - See paragraph 50.

Cases Noticed:

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, appld. [para. 33].

Farber v. Compagnie Trust Royal, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 846; 210 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 33].

Taylor v. Dyer Brown (2004), 192 O.A.C. 91; 73 O.R.(3d) 358 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd. (1960), 24 D.L.R.(2d) 140 (Ont. H.C.), appld. [para. 36].

Lefebvre v. HOJ Industries Ltd.; Machtinger v. HOJ Industries Ltd., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 986; 136 N.R. 40; 53 O.A.C. 200; 11 C.P.C.(3d) 140, refd to. [para. 37].

Keays v. Honda Canada Inc., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 362; 376 N.R. 196; 2008 SCC 39, appld. [para. 37].

Looman v. Superior Propane Inc. (1994), 126 Sask.R. 50 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 37].

Wenarchuk v. Comstock Canada (1997), 160 Sask.R. 119 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 37].

Lavallee v. Saskatoon Friendship Inn (1999), 175 Sask.R. 22 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 37].

Nagel v. Del-Air Systems Ltd. (2001), 214 Sask.R. 268; 2001 SKQB 562, refd to. [para. 37].

Vettraino v. Sun Country Health Region (2007), 300 Sask.R. 268; 2007 SKQB 246, refd to. [para. 37].

Love v. Acuity Investment Management Inc. et al. (2011), 277 O.A.C. 15; 2011 ONCA 130, consd. [para. 40].

Hall v. Canadian Corporate Management Co. and Regal Cashway Sales Ltd. (1984), 3 O.A.C. 289; 4 C.C.E.L. 166 (C.A.), consd. [para. 44].

Isaacs v. MHG International Ltd. (1984), 3 O.A.C. 301; 7 D.L.R.(4th) 570 (C.A.), consd. [para. 45].

McNevan v. AmeriCredit Corp. et al. (2008), 245 O.A.C. 28; 305 D.L.R.(4th) 233; 94 O.R.(3d) 458; 2008 ONCA 846, consd. [para. 46].

Michaels et al. v. Red Deer College, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 324; 5 N.R. 99; [1975] 5 W.W.R. 575, refd to. [para. 50].

Addis v. Gramophone Co., [1909] A.C. 488 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 51].

Peso Silver Mines Ltd. (N.P.L.) v. Cropper, [1966] S.C.R. 673, refd to. [para. 51].

Vorvis v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1085; 94 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 52].

Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 3; 350 N.R. 40; 227 B.C.A.C. 39; 374 W.A.C. 39; 2006 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 55].

Hadley v. Baxendale (1854), 9 Ex. 341; 156 E.R. 145, refd to. [para. 55].

Gismondi v. Toronto (City) (2003), 171 O.A.C. 1; 64 O.R.(3d) 688; 226 D.L.R.(4th) 334 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Trask v. Terra Nova Motors Ltd. (1995), 127 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 310; 396 A.P.R. 310; 9 C.C.E.L.(2d) 157 (Nfld. C.A.), consd. [para. 59].

Jivrag v. Calgary (City) and Calgary Parking Authority (1986), 71 A.R. 87; 45 Alta. L.R.(2d) 343 (Q.B.), revd. (1987), 62 Alta. L.R.(2d) xlviii (C.A.), consd. [para. 59].

Pagliaroli v. Rite-Pak Produce Co. et al., [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 3729; 2010 ONSC 3729, consd. [para. 68].

Chapell v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co., [2010] A.R. Uned. 531; 29 Alta. L.R.(5th) 380; 2010 ABQB 441, consd. [para. 69].

Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595; 283 N.R. 1; 156 O.A.C. 201; 2002 SCC 18, consd. [para. 72].

Counsel:

Mervin C. Phillips, for the plaintiff;

Timothy W. Stodalka and Megan K. Milani, for the defendant.

This action was heard before Chicoine, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment, with reasons, dated August 31, 2011.