Janke v. Cenalta Oilwell Servicing Ltd. et al., (1997) 152 Sask.R. 32 (CA)

• Judge: Vancise, Lane and Jackson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: November 13, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1997), 152 Sask.R. 32 (CA)

Janke v. Cenalta Oilwell Servicing (1997), 152 Sask.R. 32 (CA);

    140 W.A.C. 32

MLB headnote and full text

Edward Janke (plaintiff/respondent) v. Cenalta Oilwell Servicing Ltd. and Rance Fisher (defendants/appellants)

(Appeal File No. 1884)

Indexed As: Janke v. Cenalta Oilwell Servicing Ltd. et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Vancise, Lane and Jackson, JJ.A.

February 21, 1997.

Summary:

Janke sued for wrongful dismissal. A jury awarded him 12 months' pay in lieu of notice, minus certain amounts earned in mitigation. An issue arose concerning the proper method for calculating prejudgment interest.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 139 Sask.R. 283, held that prejudgment interest should be calculated on the basis of the method in s. 6(2) of the Pre-judgment Interest Act. The employer appealed and Janke filed a notice to vary.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dis­missed both the appeal and the notice to vary.

Damages - Topic 1415.1

Special damages - Wrongful dismissal - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated that "I agree with those cases which view the damage suffered by a wrongfully dis­missed employee as accruing throughout the notice period and as requiring periodic assessment along the way. In this respect such damages are more akin to special than general damages" - See paragraph 32.

Interest - Topic 5009

Interest as damages (prejudgment interest) - Prejudgment interest - Calculation of - Janke sued for wrongful dismissal - A jury awarded him 12 months' pay in lieu of notice, minus certain amounts earned in mitigation - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal affirmed that prejudgment interest on the award of damages in lieu of notice should be calculated on the basis of three month intervals under s. 6(2) of the Pre-judgment Interest Act and not on a lump sum basis as of the date of injury under s. 6(1).

Interest - Topic 5104

Interest as damages (prejudgment interest) - Breach of contract - Employment con­tracts - [See Interest - Topic 5009 ].

Cases Noticed:

Nance v. British Columbia Electric Rail­way Co., [1951] A.C. 601 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 2].

Sweet (George C.) Agencies Ltd. v. Sklar-Peppler Furniture Corp. (1995), 140 N.S.R.(2d) 69; 399 A.P.R. 69 (C.A.), consd. [para. 5].

Schmidt v. Saskatchewan Oil and Gas Corp. (1993), 107 Sask.R. 114 (Q.B.), not folld. [para. 7].

Peterson v. Dominion Bridge (Saskatch-ewan) et al. (1994), 127 Sask.R. 153 (Q.B.), not folld. [para. 7].

Biccum v. Fanny's Fabrics (Sask.) Ltd. (1996), 149 Sask.R. 243 (Q.B.), not folld. [para. 7].

Jefford v. Gee, [1970] 2 Q.B. 130 (C.A.), consd. [para. 9].

Harbutt's "Plasticine" Ltd. v. Wayne Tank and Pump Co., [1970] 1 Q.B. 447 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Cookson v. Knowles, [1979] A.C. 556 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 10].

Dexter v. Courtaulds Ltd., [1984] 1 W.L.R. 372 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Riches v. Westminster Bank Ltd., [1947] A.C. 390 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 11].

Hope Hardware and Building Supply Co. v. Fields Stores Ltd. (1978), 90 D.L.R.(2d) 49 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

Trache v. Canadian National Railway, [1929] 2 D.L.R. 321 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Andrews et al. v. Grand & Toy (Alberta) Ltd. et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229; 19 N.R. 50; 8 A.R. 182; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 452; [1978] 1 W.W.R. 577; 3 C.C.L.T. 225, refd to. [para. 16].

Brown v. Ipsco Inc. (1987), 60 Sask.R. 8 (Q.B.), folld. [para. 19].

Rupchan v. Simpson Timber Co. (Sask.) Ltd. (1988), 71 Sask.R. 143 (Q.B.), folld. [para. 20].

Larsen v. Saskatchewan Transportation Co. (1992), 106 Sask.R. 277 (Q.B.), folld. [para. 20].

Bartlam v. Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corp. (1993), 112 Sask.R. 136 (Q.B.), folld. [para. 20].

Klamot v. Farm World Equipment Ltd. (1995), 126 Sask.R. 125 (Q.B.), folld. [para. 20].

McIntosh v. Saskatchewan Water Corp. (1988), 70 Sask.R. 280 (Q.B.), affd. (1989), 77 Sask.R. 81 (C.A.), folld. [para. 20].

Stevens v. Globe and Mail et al. (1996), 90 O.A.C. 361; 28 O.R.(3d) 481 (C.A.), not folld. [para. 22].

Blackburn v. Coyle Motors Ltd. (1983), 44 O.R.(2d) 690 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Rushton v. Lake Ontario Steel Co. (1980), 29 O.R.(2d) 68 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Suttie v. Metro Transit Operating Co. (1985), 28 D.L.R.(4th) 36 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Christianson v. North Hill News Inc. (1993), 145 A.R. 58; 55 W.A.C. 58; 106 D.L.R.(4th) 747 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd., [1960] O.W.N. 253 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 32].

Statutes Noticed:

Pre-judgment Interest Act, S.S. 1984-85-86, c. P-22.2, sect. 6(1), sect. 6(2) [para. 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

British Columbia, Law Reform Commis­sion, Interim Report on Debtor Creditor Relationships Part 4 - Pre-judgment Interest (1973), generally [para. 8]; p. 21 [para. 11].

Butterworths Wrongful Dismissal Practice Manual, paras. 9.6 [para. 32]; 11.106 to 11.112 [para. 4].

Uniform Law Conference of Canada Pro­ceedings of the Sixty-second Annual Meeting, pp. 247 [para. 14]; 248 [para. 17].

Waddams, Steven M., The Law of Dam­ages (2nd Ed.), para. 7.590 [para. 28].

Waldron, Mary Anne, The Law of Interest in Canada (1st Ed. 1992), pp. 125 to 161 [para. 27].

Counsel:

James Nugent, for the appellants;

Chris Sarsons, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 13, 1996, before Vancise, Lane and Jackson, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Jackson, J.A., on February 21, 1997.