Henry v. Fox Ford,

JurisdictionNew Brunswick
JudgeTurnbull, Larlee and Robertson, JJ.A.
Neutral Citation2004 NBCA 22
Citation2004 NBCA 22,(2004), 269 N.B.R.(2d) 63 (CA),269 NBR (2d) 63,[2004] NBJ No 109 (QL),31 CCEL (3d) 72,(2004), 269 NBR(2d) 63 (CA),[2004] N.B.J. No 109 (QL),269 NBR(2d) 63,269 N.B.R.(2d) 63
Date19 March 2003
CourtCourt of Appeal (New Brunswick)

Henry v. Fox Ford (2004), 269 N.B.R.(2d) 63 (CA);

    269 R.N.-B.(2e) 63; 707 A.P.R. 63

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2004] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.050

Gerald Henry (appellant) v. Foxco Ltd., operating as Fox Ford (respondent)

(140/02/CA; 2004 NBCA 22)

Indexed As: Henry v. Fox Ford

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Turnbull, Larlee and Robertson, JJ.A.

March 25, 2004.

Summary:

Henry sued his employer, Fox Ford, for damages for wrongful dismissal. Henry had a verbal altercation with his supervisor which ended with him being fired. Henry argued that even if the court accepted the supervisor's version of events, an isolated act would not provide just cause for dismissal.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported at [2002] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 82, dis­missed Henry's claim. The confrontation was serious enough to justify the dismissal. The court held that in effect, Henry was refusing to be directed by his supervisor. He was "repudiating an essential condition of his employment". The court provisionally as­sessed damages based on an eight months notice period. Henry appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, Turnbull, J.A., dissenting allowed the appeal. The court held that the trial judge erred in finding that Fox Ford was justified in termi­nating Henry's employment. The court accepted the notice period used by the trial judge in the provisional assessment.

Master and Servant - Topic 7550

Dismissal of employees - Grounds - Cause or just cause defined - Henry sued his employer of over seven years, Fox Ford, for damages for wrongful dismissal - Henry had a single verbal altercation with his supervisor which ended with him being fired - Henry argued that even if the court accepted the supervisor's version of events, an isolated act would not provide just cause for dismissal - The trial judge dis­missed Henry's claim - The confrontation was serious enough to justify the dismissal - In effect, Henry was refusing to be di­rected by his supervisor - He was "repu­diating an essential condition of his em­ployment" - Henry appealed - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The court discussed the general rule that a single incident of employment misconduct does not warrant summary dismissal - The court held that the single isolated incident of insolence in this case did not irreparably harm or destroy the employment relationship - Fox Ford failed to establish just cause for summarily dis­missing Henry.

Master and Servant - Topic 7554

Dismissal of employees - Grounds - Wilful disobedience or insubordination - [See Master and Servant - Topic 7550 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 7559

Dismissal of employees - Grounds - Inso­lence - [See Master and Servant - Topic 7550 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 7566

Dismissal of employees - Grounds - Repu­diation of contract of employment - [See Master and Servant - Topic 7550 ].

Practice - Topic 8800

Appeals - General principles - Duty of appellate court regarding findings of fact - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, per Robertson, J.A. and Turnbull, J.A., dis­cussed the standard of appellate review from a finding of "just cause" in a wrong­ful dismissal case, including whether such a finding was one of fact or mixed fact and law - See paragraphs 17 to 36 and 56 to 84.

Practice - Topic 8800.1

Appeals - General principles - Duty of appellate court regarding findings of mixed law and fact by a trial judge - [See Prac­tice - Topic 8800 ].

Cases Noticed:

McKinley v. BC Tel et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 161; 271 N.R. 16; 153 B.C.A.C. 161; 251 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 8, 50, 64].

MacNaughton v. Sears Canada Inc. (1997), 186 N.B.R.(2d) 384; 476 A.P.R. 384 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 14, 47].

Dougherty v. Bathurst Golf Association Ltd. (1997), 189 N.B.R.(2d) 230; 482 A.P.R. 230 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 14, 47].

Justason v. Cox Radio & T.V. Ltd. (1997), 190 N.B.R.(2d) 228; 484 A.P.R. 228 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

McCluskey v. Lawtons Drug Stores Ltd. (1998), 204 N.B.R.(2d) 137; 520 A.P.R. 137 (T.D.), affd. (1999), 210 N.B.R.(2d) 198; 536 A.P.R. 198 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Thompson v. Lex Tec Inc. (2001), 149 O.A.C. 106 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Islip v. Coldmatic Refrigeration of Canada Ltd. (2002), 167 B.C.A.C. 259; 274 W.A.C. 259 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Houlihan v. McEvoy et al., [2002] B.C.T.C. 16 (S.C.), affd. [2003] B.C.A.C. Uned. 56 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Bonneville v. Unisource Canada Inc. (2002), 222 Sask.R. 107 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Buhay (M.A.) (2003), 305 N.R. 158; 177 Man.R.(2d) 72; 304 W.A.C. 72; 2003 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341; 216 N.R. 161; 103 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Bernard (J.) (2003), 262 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 688 A.P.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 20, 66].

Gallant v. Thibodeau (1998), 206 N.B.R.(2d) 336; 526 A.P.R. 336 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 22, 66].

Carnaghan v. Bernard Insurance Ltd. (1982), 16 A.C.W.S.(2d) 32 (N.S.T.D.), refd to. [para. 43].

Donovan v. New Brunswick Publishing Co. (1996), 174 N.B.R.(2d) 23; 444 A.P.R. 23 (T.D.), varied (1996), 184 N.B.R.(2d) 40; 469 A.P.R. 40 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 43, 116].

Codner v. Joint Construction Ltd. (1989), 74 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 219; 231 A.P.R. 219 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [paras. 44, 118].

Beal v. Grant (1984), 52 N.B.R.(2d) 163; 137 A.P.R. 163 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 48, 92].

Bramble et al. v. Medis Health and Phar­maceutical Services Inc. (1999), 214 N.B.R.(2d) 111; 547 A.P.R. 111 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Holloway v. Encor Energy Corp. (1991), 93 Sask.R. 226; 4 W.A.C. 226 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 66].

Arsenault v. Belanger (2002), 254 N.B.R.(2d) 353; 664 A.P.R. 353 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2002), 227 Sask.R. 165; 287 W.A.C. 165 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted (2003), 230 D.L.R.(4th) 735 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

Goodine v. Milk Marketing Board (N.B.) (2002), 251 N.B.R.(2d) 5; 654 A.P.R. 5 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

Neudorf v. Sun Valley Co-Op Ltd. (1994), 94 Man.R.(2d) 204; 6 C.C.E.L.(2d) 61 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 80].

Boyes v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (1982), 18 Sask.R. 361 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 82].

Clouston & Co. v. Corry, [1906] A.C. 122 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 95].

Laws v. London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers) Ltd., [1959] 2 All E.R. 285 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 99].

Giancola v. Jo-Del Investments Ltd. et al. (2003), 175 O.A.C. 197 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 104].

Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.) - see Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration.

Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 106].

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. 107].

Belliveau v. Dylex Ltd. (1987), 79 N.B.R.(2d) 141; 201 A.P.R. 141 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 114].

Blainey v. Hickey (F.R.) (1985), 34 A.C.W.S.(2d) 82 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 117].

Nielsen v. Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia (1987), 14 B.C.L.R.(2d) 85 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 118].

Vatri v. Delco Wire & Cable Ltd. (1983), 19 A.C.W.S.(2d) 208 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 120].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Echlin, Randall, and Certosimo, Scott, The Law of Summary Dismissal in Canada (1998) (2003 Looseleaf Update), p. 17-1 [paras. 76, 99].

Levitt, Howard A., The Law of Dismissal in Canada (2nd Ed. 1992), p. 158 [paras. 25, 49].

Mole, Ellen E., The Wrongful Dismissal Handbook (1990), p. 39 [para. 45].

Mole, Ellen E., The Wrongful Dismissal Handbook (1997), pp. 75, 76 [para. 111].

Counsel:

George E. Kalinowski, for the appellant;

Peter E. Crocco, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 19, 2003, by Turnbull, Larlee and Robertson, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on March 25, 2004, when the following opinions were filed:

Turnbull, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 1 to 36;

Larlee, J.A. - see paragraphs 37 to 55;

Robertson, J.A. - see paragraphs 56 to 137.

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 practice notes
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law Society of Upper Canada Special Lectures 2012: Employment Law and the New Workplace in the Social Media Age
    • June 18, 2013
    ...390, 94 CCPB 313, [2011] BCCAAA No 125 (Glass) ..................................................................268–69 Henry v Foxco Ltd, 2004 NBCA 22 ..........................................................................266 Holwen v Alberta Plywood Ltd, 2005 ABQB 464 .......................
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Individual Employment Law. Second Edition
    • June 16, 2008
    ...(No. 2) (1999), 34 C.H.R.R. D/36 (B.C.H.R.T.), additional reasons at [1999] B.C.H.R.T.D. No. 4 ........... 261 Henry v. Foxco Ltd. (2004), 269 N.B.R. (2d) 63, 31 C.C.E.L. (3d) 72, 2004 NBCA 22 ............................................................................................. 324 ......
  • Ross v. IBM Canada Ltd., 2015 ABQB 563
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • September 4, 2015
    ...establish that Mr. Ross was working half time for Compartment Inc. Cases and authority cited [8] By the Plaintiff: Henry v Foxco Ltd. , 2004 NBCA 22; Holwen v Alberta Plywood Ltd. , 2005 ABQB 464; McKinley v BC Tel , 2001 SCC 38; Dowling v Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board) , 20......
  • O.W.L. (Orphaned Wildlife) Rehabilitation Society v. Day, 2018 BCSC 1724
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • October 9, 2018
    ...be examined in context and whether it is reconcilable with sustaining the employment relationship: Henry v. Foxco Ltd. (c.o.b. Fox Ford), 2004 NBCA 22 at paras. 48-53; Thompson v. Lex Tec Inc. (2001), 1490 A.C. 106 [222] The Board created an untenable situation for Ms. Day that did not enga......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
36 cases
  • Ross v. IBM Canada Ltd., 2015 ABQB 563
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • September 4, 2015
    ...establish that Mr. Ross was working half time for Compartment Inc. Cases and authority cited [8] By the Plaintiff: Henry v Foxco Ltd. , 2004 NBCA 22; Holwen v Alberta Plywood Ltd. , 2005 ABQB 464; McKinley v BC Tel , 2001 SCC 38; Dowling v Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board) , 20......
  • O.W.L. (Orphaned Wildlife) Rehabilitation Society v. Day, 2018 BCSC 1724
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • October 9, 2018
    ...be examined in context and whether it is reconcilable with sustaining the employment relationship: Henry v. Foxco Ltd. (c.o.b. Fox Ford), 2004 NBCA 22 at paras. 48-53; Thompson v. Lex Tec Inc. (2001), 1490 A.C. 106 [222] The Board created an untenable situation for Ms. Day that did not enga......
  • Anderson v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., 2011 SKQB 188
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • May 10, 2011
    ...Tel et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 161; 271 N.R. 16; 153 B.C.A.C. 161; 251 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 35]. Henry v. Fox Ford (2004), 269 N.B.R.(2d) 63; 707 A.P.R. 63; 2004 NBCA 22, refd to. [para. Bissett Air Service Ltd. v. Whiteshell Air Service Ltd. (1998), 126 Man.R.(2d) 131; 167......
  • Cicalese v Saipem Canada Inc, 2018 ABQB 835
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • October 4, 2018
    ...conduct. The test applies to all acts of alleged employee misconduct: Ross v IBM Canada Ltd, 2015 ABQB 563 at para 31; Henry v Foxco Ltd, 2004 NBCA 22 at para 13. [20] In determining whether an alleged cause is just cause for termination of an employment contract, this Court has established......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law Society of Upper Canada Special Lectures 2012: Employment Law and the New Workplace in the Social Media Age
    • June 18, 2013
    ...390, 94 CCPB 313, [2011] BCCAAA No 125 (Glass) ..................................................................268–69 Henry v Foxco Ltd, 2004 NBCA 22 ..........................................................................266 Holwen v Alberta Plywood Ltd, 2005 ABQB 464 .......................
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Individual Employment Law. Second Edition
    • June 16, 2008
    ...(No. 2) (1999), 34 C.H.R.R. D/36 (B.C.H.R.T.), additional reasons at [1999] B.C.H.R.T.D. No. 4 ........... 261 Henry v. Foxco Ltd. (2004), 269 N.B.R. (2d) 63, 31 C.C.E.L. (3d) 72, 2004 NBCA 22 ............................................................................................. 324 ......
  • When Can Your Employer 'Unlike' You?: Just Cause for Dismissal and Social Media
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law Society of Upper Canada Special Lectures 2012: Employment Law and the New Workplace in the Social Media Age
    • June 18, 2013
    ...30 Alberta , above note 22 at para 100. 31 (2012), 216 LAC (4th) 207 (Ponak) [ Canada Post ]. 32 Ibid at para 103. 33 Henry v Foxco Ltd , 2004 NBCA 22 at para 125. The court stated that exceptions to this rule include: (1) that the employee and superior are no longer capable of maintaining ......
  • Termination for insolence.
    • Canada
    • LawNow Vol. 40 No. 5, May - May 2016
    • May 1, 2016
    ...set out at the beginning of this article, do you think they are sufficiently serious to support firing? The case is Henry v. Foxco Ltd., 2004 NBCA 22 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/1gsb0. The trial judge concluded the confrontation justified dismissal, and one of the Court of Appeal judges ag......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT