Letendre et al. v. Deines Micro-Film Services Ltd., 2001 ABQB 26

• Judge: Moen, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 20, 2000
• Citations: 2001 ABQB 26;(2001), 283 A.R. 241 (QB)

Letendre v. Deines Micro-Film Services (2001), 283 A.R. 241 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. FE.020

Clem Letendre, Susan Letendre and 225 Computer Accessories Ltd. (plaintiffs) v. Deines Micro-Film Services Ltd. (defendant)

(Action No. 9603 24033; 2001 ABQB 26)

Indexed As: Letendre et al. v. Deines Micro-Film Services Ltd.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Moen, J.

January 18, 2001.

Summary:

Letendre sued for damages for wrongful dismissal.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action.

Master and Servant - Topic 7523

Dismissal of employees - Grounds - General - Condonation - Letendre, age 43, was the vice president of operations and the "second in command" - He had been employed by the company for 16 years and had been critical to its growth and management - The company's owner terminated Letendre, alleging insubordination and a refusal to follow directions - Thereafter, the owner learned that Letendre had committed a fraud on the company's insurance company two years before his termination - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the cause alleged at the time of dismissal did not warrant summary dismissal - The owner had not made it clear to Letendre that his behaviour was unacceptable and would result in termination - Given the owner's difficulties in communicating with Letendre, the matter should have been communicated in writing - The failure to warn and ongoing negotiations respecting Letendre becoming a partner constituted condonation - However, the revelation of Letendre's insurance fraud combined with his false testimony at trial fundamentally damaged the relationship of trust and justified Letendre's termination - The court provisionally assessed damages based on a 16 month notice period.

Master and Servant - Topic 7525

Dismissal of employees - Grounds - General - Grounds learned after dismissal - [See Master and Servant - Topic 7523 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 7525

Dismissal of employees - Grounds - General - Grounds learned after dismissal - An employer sought to rely upon post-termination conduct to constitute cause for a dismissal - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the post-termination conduct did not breach the employment agreement and refused to consider it when determining whether there was a wrongful dismissal - The court stated that "[p]ost-termination conduct may be relevant to characterizing or explaining pre-dismissal conduct, but it may not be relied on as cause for the dismissal. This is because an employer must prove a breach of the contract of employment to justify summary dismissal, but if the conduct occurs after termination, it cannot breach the contract, as it is already terminated." - See paragraphs 15 to 17.

Master and Servant - Topic 7559

Dismissal of employees - Grounds - Insolence - [See Master and Servant - Topic 7523 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 7586

Dismissal of employees - Grounds - Untrustworthiness - [See Master and Servant - Topic 7523 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 7589

Dismissal of employees - Grounds - Revelation of character - [See Master and Servant - Topic 7523 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 7608

Dismissal of employees - Defences - Waiver, condonation or warning of misconduct -[See Master and Servant - Topic 7523 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 8000

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dismissal - What constitutes reasonable notice - [See Master and Servant - Topic 7523 ].

Cases Noticed:

Lake Ontario Portland Cement Co. v. Groner, [1961] S.C.R. 553; 28 D.L.R.(2d) 589, refd to. [para. 16].

Walerius v. McDiarmid Lumber Ltd. (2000), 148 Man.R.(2d) 50; 224 W.A.C. 50 (C.A.), red to. [para. 16].

Agarand v. Farm Business Consultants Inc. (2000), 264 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 35].

Chodan v. Banff Voyager Inn Ltd. (1988), 85 A.R. 106 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 37].

Jewitt v. Prism Resources Ltd. (1980), 110 D.L.R.(3d) 713 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1981), 127 D.L.R.(3d) 190 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Gillman v. Saan Stores Ltd. (1992), 132 A.R. 144 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 42].

Hill v. Dow Chemical Canada Inc. (1993), 140 A.R. 394 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 42].

DiVito v. MacDonald Dettwiler & Associates Ltd. (1996), 21 C.C.E.L.(2d) 137 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

Lau v. Geo-X Systems Ltd. (1998), 238 A.R. 276 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 43].

Forest v. Monmarte Co-operative Association Ltd., [1993] 4 W.W.R. 537; 107 Sask.R. 166 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 44].

Carbone v. Syncrude Canada Ltd. (1997), 213 A.R. 101; 32 C.C.E.L.(2d) 246 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 44].

Hardie v. Trans-Canada Resource Ltd. (1976), 2 A.R. 289; 71 D.L.R.(3d) 668 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Cherniwchan v. Two Hills No. 21 (County) (1982), 38 A.R. 125 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 46].

Hyland v. Royal Alexandra Hospital (2000), 267 A.R. 329 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 47].

Pliniussen v. University of Western Ontario (1983), 2 C.C.E.L. 1 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 47].

Aspinall v. Mid-West Collieries, [1926] 2 W.W.R. 456 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Federal Supply & Cold Storage Co. of South Africa v. Angehrn & Piel (1910), 103 L.T. 150 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 52].

Meyer v. Partec Lavalin Inc. et al. (1999), 239 A.R. 223 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 58].

Degelman v. Anderson Industries Ltd. (1987), 61 Sask. R. 85 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 58].

Denhamer v. RBC Dominion Securities Inc. (2000), 273 A.R. 159 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 59].

Port Arthur Shipbuilding Co. v. Arthur (1967), 62 D.L.R.(2d) 342 (Ont. C.A.), revd. (1969), 70 D.L.R.(2d) 693 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

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; 152 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 102].

Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd., [1960] O.W.N. 253; 24 D.L.R.(2d) 140 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 103].

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; 91 D.L.R.(4th) 491; 40 C.C.E.L. 1, refd to. [para. 103].

Stea v. Kulhawy (1996), 182 A.R. 81; 18 C.C.E.L.(2d) 246 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 106].

Ryan v. Laidlaw Transportation Ltd. et al. (1995), 86 O.A.C. 150; 26 O.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 106].

Baker v. British Columbia Insurance Co. (1992), 41 C.C.E.L. 107 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1993), 76 B.C.L.R.(2d) 367 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 106].

Busch v. GTE Sylvania Canada Ltd. (1982), 40 A.R. 189 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 106].

Counsel:

B. Doherty (Doherty Schuldhaus), for the plaintiffs;

P.F.A. Jasper (Cruickshank Karvellas), for the defendant.

Moen, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, heard this action on June 20, 2000, and delivered the following reasons for judgment on January 18, 2001.