Cronk v. Canadian General Insurance Co., (1995) 85 O.A.C. 54 (CA)

• Judge: Morden, A.C.J.O., Lacourcière and Weiler, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: September 21, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1995), 85 O.A.C. 54 (CA);1995 CanLII 814 (ON CA);1995 CanLII 814 (NS CA);25 OR (3d) 505;128 DLR (4th) 147;23 BLR (2d) 70;[1995] OJ No 2751 (QL);14 CCEL (2d) 1;85 OAC 54

Cronk v. Cdn. General Ins. Co. (1995), 85 O.A.C. 54 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Edna Cronk (respondent) v. Canadian General Insurance Company (appellant)

(C19272)

Indexed As: Cronk v. Canadian General Insurance Co.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Morden, A.C.J.O., Lacourcière and Weiler, JJ.A.

September 21, 1995.

Summary:

A 55 year old employee had worked for her employer in various clerical positions for 29 years when her job was terminated in an internal reorganization. The employee sued for damages for wrongful dismissal.

The Ontario Court (General Division), in a decision reported (1994), 19 O.R.(3d) 515, granted summary judgment in favour of the employee, holding that the appropriate notice period was 20 months. The employer appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Weiler, J.A., dissenting in part, allowed the appeal and reduced the notice period to 12 months. Weiler, J.A., would have set aside the sum­mary judgment and directed a trial of the issue of reasonable notice.

Damages - Topic 6748

Contracts - Employment contracts - For breach by employer - Loss of vacation pay - An employee was dismissed in an internal reorganization after 29 years of service in clerical positions - A motions judge held that the appropriate notice period was 20 months and in addi­tion awarded vaca­tion pay calculated at 8% during the notice period - The Ontario Court of Appeal varied the judge's award for vaca­tion pay - The court stated that the employee "was entitled to receive vacation pay upon the termination of her employ­ment. The statu­tory benefit [under the Employment Stan­dards Act] must obvi­ously be calculated in accordance with the pro­visions of the statute and does not apply to the period of notice to which the respon­dent is entitled at common law if that period exceeds the period to which the statutory benefit applies" - See para­graphs 13 to 15.

Evidence - Topic 2266

Judicial notice - Books, newspapers, articles, studies etc. - [See Master and Servant - Topic 8007.1 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 8000

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dis­missal - Reasonable notice - What consti­tutes - [See Master and Servant - Topic 8007.1 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 8003

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dis­missal - Reasonable notice - Consider­ations affecting - Character of employ­ment - [See Master and Servant - Topic 8007.1 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 8003.1

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dis­missal - Reasonable notice - Calculation of length of service - A clerical employee worked for her employer for 13 years - She then resigned to stay home and raise her family, but occasionally worked at her former employer's office through a tem­porary employment agency - After six years at home, she was rehired by her former employer where she worked for 16 more years before being terminated in an inter­nal reorganization - In calculating her damages for wrongful dismissal, the mo­tions judge considered the 13 years before her six year absence as well as the 16 years thereafter - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that, in the circumstances, the trial judge was correct in taking into ac­count the employee's total service in de­termining the notice period - See para­graph 10.

Master and Servant - Topic 8007

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dis­missal - Reasonable notice - Long service employees - [See Master and Servant - Topic 8007.1 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 8007.1

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dis­missal - Reasonable notice - Management vs. clerical employees - A clerical em­ployee was dismissed in an internal reor­ganization after 29 years' service - The motions judge, relying on two university studies and a magazine article, departed from the established principle that clerical employees are generally entitled to shorter notice periods than senior management and ruled that 20 months' notice was appropri­ate - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in departing from a widely accepted principle by relying on his own sociological research without provid­ing counsel an opportunity to respond to the studies - The factual con­clusions drawn were beyond the scope of proper judicial notice - The character of her employment did not entitle the employee to a lengthy notice period; rather 12 months' notice was appropriate - See paragraphs 1 to 30 and 83 to 96.

Cases Noticed:

Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd., [1960] O.W.N. 253; 24 D.L.R.(2d) 140 (Ont. H.C.), appld. [para. 5 et seq.].

Stevens v. Globe & Mail (1992), 7 O.R. (3d) 520; 86 D.L.R.(4th) 204; 39 C.C.E.L. 1 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [paras. 10, 93].

Hall v. Giant Yellowknife Mines Ltd. (1992), 44 C.C.E.L. 101 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Addison v. Loeb (M.) Ltd. (1986), 13 O.A.C. 392; 53 O.R.(2d) 602 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Szwez v. Allied Van Lines Ltd. (1993), 45 C.C.E.L. 39 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 11].

Bohemier v. Storwal International Inc. (1982), 40 O.R.(2d) 264 (H.C.), refd to. [paras. 13, 38, 88].

Bohemier v. Storwal International Inc. (1983), 44 O.R.(2d) 361 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1984), 3 C.C.E.L. 79 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 13, 38, 89].

Scott v. Board of Education of School District No. 29 (Lillooet) (1991), 5 B.C.A.C. 254; 11 W.A.C. 254; 60 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273 (C.A.), agreed with. [para. 14].

Ansari v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1986), 2 B.C.L.R.(2d) 33 (S.C.), refd to. [paras. 20, 67, 87].

Machtinger v. Hoj Industries Ltd., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 986; 136 N.R. 40; 53 O.A.C. 200; 91 D.L.R.(4th) 491, refd to. [paras. 21, 69].

Dafoe v. Microtel Ltd. (1987), 6 A.C.W.S.(3d) 433 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

McHugh v. City Motors (Nfld.) Ltd. (1989), 74 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 263; 231 A.P.R. 263 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Wiebe v. Central Transport Refrigeration (Man.) Ltd. (1994), 95 Man.R.(2d) 65; 70 W.A.C. 65; 3 C.C.E.L.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 21, 70].

Pelech v. Hyundai Auto Canada Inc. (1991), 10 B.C.A.C. 3; 21 W.A.C. 3; 63 B.C.L.R.(2d) 24 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Potts (1982), 36 O.R.(2d) 195 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 145 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161; [1993] 1 W.W.R. 481; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 456; 43 R.F.L.(3d) 345, refd to. [paras. 25, 47, footnote 3].

Cassell & Co. v. Broome, [1972] 1 All E.R. 801 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 27].

McKay v. Camco Inc. (1986), 11 O.A.C. 356; 53 O.R.(2d) 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Morrison v. Abernathy School Board (1875-76), 3 S.C.(4th) 945, refd to. [para. 35].

Reference Re Alberta Statutes, [1938] S.C.R. 100, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 47, footnote 2].

Marzetti v. Marzetti, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 765; 169 N.R. 161; 155 A.R. 340; 73 W.A.C. 340; 26 C.B.R.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 47, footnote 3].

R. v. McCraw, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 72; 128 N.R. 299; 49 O.A.C. 47; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 517, refd to. [para. 47, footnote 4].

Eaton v. Board of Education of Brant County (1995), 77 O.A.C. 368; 22 O.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Parnell (S.D.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 297 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Désaulniers (L.) (1994), 65 Q.A.C. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Cadillac Fair­view/JMB Properties et al. (1995), 79 O.A.C. 303; 21 O.R.(3d) 783 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

TFP Investments Inc. (Bankrupt) v. Bea­con Realty Co. (1994), 70 O.A.C. 366; 17 O.R.(3d) 687 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 79 C.R.(3d) 273; 49 C.R.R. 1; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 355; 75 O.R.(2d) 673, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. M.A.J. (1991), 46 O.A.C. 136; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 483 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Lazarowicz v. Orenda Engines Ltd., [1961] O.R. 141 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

Miller (Ron) Realty Ltd. v. Honeywell Wotherspoon (1991), 4 O.R.(3d) 492 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 95].

Statutes Noticed:

Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-14, Part VIII [para. 13].

Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.), rule 20.04(2) [para. 53].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Chitty on Contracts, Specific Contracts (27th Ed. 1994), pp. 781, 782 [para. 87].

Christie, England & Cotter, Employment Law in Canada (2nd Ed. 1993), pp. 615, 616, 617 [para. 87].

Dworkin, R., A Matter of Principle (1985), pp. 3, 69, 374 [para. 55].

Dworkin, R., Law's Empire (1986), pp. 145, 204 [para. 55]; 210 [para. 56]; 211 [para. 55]; 213 [para. 61]; 214, 216, 217, 219 [para. 55].

Facts and Figures: A Compendium of Statistics on Ontario Universities, Coun­cil of Ontario Universities (1994), gen­erally [para. 44].

Financial Position of Universities in Ontario: 1994, Council of Ontario Uni­versities, generally [para. 44].

Fisher, Barry B., Case Comment on Cronk v. Canadian General Insurance Co., 6 C.C.E.L.(2d) 29, pp. 30 [para. 42, foot­note 1]; 36 [para. 92].

Fisher, Barry B., Computerized Analysis of Notice Periods - 1990 Update, Canadian Institute, June 11, 1991, generally [para. 42, footnote 1].

Freedland, The Contract of Employment (1976), p. 154 [para. 87].

Harris, David, Wrongful Dismissal (1990), pp. 4-42, 4-42.8 [para. 92].

Hart and McNaughton, Evidence and In­ferences in the Law, in Evidence and Inference, Lerner ed., pp. 60 [para. 55]; 64, 65 [para. 48].

Hepple & O'Higgins, Employment Law (3rd Ed. 1979), pp. 241, 242 [para. 87].

Kilcoyne, John, Risks, Rights and Reifica­tion, in Developments in Employment Law: The 1993-94 Term, 6 Sup. Ct. L. Rev.(2d) 343, pp. 345, 346 [para. 76]; 349, 350 [para. 65].

L'Heureux-Dubé, Re-examining the Doc­trine of Judicial Notice in the Family Law Context (1994), 26 Ott. L. Rev. 551, generally [para. 47].

Macklem, Developments in Employment Law: The 1991-1992 Term, 4 Sup. Ct. L. Rev.(2d) 279, pp. 284 to 288 [para. 71].

Mole, Ellen, Wrongful Dismissal Practice Manual (1984), generally [para. 43].

Paton, Jurisprudence (4th Ed. 1972), pp. 236, 237 [para. 84].

Posner, The Problems of Jurisprudence (1990), para. 42ff [para. 84].

Pound, The Theory of Judicial Decision (1923), 36 Harv. L. Rev. 641, pp. 645, 646 [para. 84].

Schlag, Rules and Standards (1985), 33 U.C.L.A. Law Rev. 379, generally [para. 84].

Weiler, Paul, Legal Values and Judicial Decision-Making (1970), 48 Can. Bar Rev. 1, pp. 10 [para. 56]; 14 [para. 61]; 36 [para. 55].

Weiler, Paul, Two Models of Judicial Decision-Making (1968), 46 Can. Bar Rev. 406, p. 435 [para. 55].

Wyzanski Jr., Charles, A Trial Judge's Freedom and Responsibility (1952), 65 Harv. L. Rev. 1281, pp. 1293, 1295, 1296 [para. 50].

Counsel:

William G. Scott and Philip M. Tunley, for the appellant;

W. Graydon Sheppard, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 8 and 9, 1995, before Morden, A.C.J.O., Lacourcière and Weiler, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision was released on September 21, 1995, including the fol­lowing opinions:

Lacourcière, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 30;

Weiler, J.A., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 31 to 82;

Morden, A.C.J.O. - see paragraphs 83 to 96.