Leyte v. Newfoundland (Minister of Social Services), (1997) 148 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 255 (NFTD)

• Judge: Easton, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
• Case Date: November 22, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (1997), 148 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 255 (NFTD)

Leyte v. Nfld. (1997), 148 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 255 (NFTD);

    464 A.P.R. 255

MLB headnote and full text

George Leyte (plaintiff) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Newfoundland who at all times material to this action was representing The Minister of Social Services (defendant)

(1996 No. G-1)

Indexed As: Leyte v. Newfoundland (Minister of Social Services)

Newfoundland Supreme Court

Trial Division

Easton, J.

January 20, 1997.

Summary:

Leyte was terminated from his position as a welfare officer with the Department of Social Services. He sued for wrongful dis­missal. At issue in a preliminary applica­tion was whether the Crown could rely on the "at pleasure" prerogative where it cited just cause as the reason for Leyte's dis­missal.

The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that Leyte was employed at pleasure and although the Crown owed him a duty of procedural fairness it was not required to demonstrate just cause or pro­vide reasonable notice.

Administrative Law - Topic 2264

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - When required - Leyte's employment with the government was terminated - The Crown cited just cause as the reason for dismissal - Leyte sued for wrongful dis­missal - In its statement of defence the Crown claimed that Leyte was employed "at pleasure" and therefore neither notice nor proof of just cause was required - Leyte argued that the Crown could not rely on its "at pleasure" pre­rogative where it claimed just cause as the reason for termi­nation - The New­foundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that in the circumstances the Crown owed a duty of procedural fairness to Leyte where it gave reasons for his dis­missal but that duty did not impose an onus on the Crown to dem­onstrate just cause where Leyte was employed at pleasure - Further, reasonable notice did not apply to positions occupied at pleas­ure.

Crown - Topic 1084

Contracts with Crown - Employment contracts - Duty of Crown to give notice of dismissal - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2264 ].

Crown - Topic 1087

Contracts with Crown - Employment contracts - Power to dismiss - [See Ad­ministrative Law - Topic 2264 ].

Crown - Topic 5127

Officials and employees - Appointment and employment - Appointment at plea­s­ure - Termination of - [See Adminis­tra­tive Law - Topic 2264 ].

Cases Noticed:

Radivojevic v. Queen (1979), 1 A.C.W.S.(2d) 230 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

McLean v. Vancouver Harbour Commis­sioners, [1936] 3 W.W.R. 657; 51 B.C.R. 169 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 19].

Wilson and Nova Scotia Government Employees' Association v. Civil Service Commission (N.S.), [1981] 1 S.C.R. 211; 35 N.R. 103; 43 N.S.R.(2d) 631; 81 A.P.R. 631, refd to. [para. 19].

Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police and Ontario (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; 23 N.R. 410; 88 D.L.R.(3d) 671; 78 C.L.L.C. 14,181, refd to. [para. 20].

Lethbridge v. Newfoundland (Minister of Health) (1992), 103 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 13; 326 A.P.R. 13 (Nfld. T.D.), consd. [para. 22].

McKeen v. New Brunswick (1971), 3 N.B.R.(2d) 418 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 27].

Washer v. British Columbia Toll High­ways and Bridges Authority (1965), 53 D.L.R.(2d) 620 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Malik v. Manitoba and Civil Service Commission (Man.) (1985), 35 Man.R.(2d) 48; 9 C.C.E.L. 121 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 27].

Clarke v. Ontario (Attorney General) et al., [1966] 1 O.R. 539 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Mills v. Alberta, [1986] 5 W.W.R. 567 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

McKnight v. New Brunswick (1978), 21 N.B.R.(2d) 297; 37 A.P.R. 297 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 29].

Malone v. Ontario (1983), 45 O.R.(2d) 206 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

Wuorinen v. Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) (1983), 1 C.C.E.L. 29 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

Malloch v. Aberdeen Corp., [1977] 2 All E.R. 1278 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 45].

Statutes Noticed:

Public Employees Act, R.S.N. 1990, c. P-36, sect. 6 [para. 6].

Interpretation Act, R.S.N. 1990, c. I-19, sect. 20, sect. 21(1) [para. 7].

Counsel:

Robert Regular, for the plaintiff;

Reg Locke, for the defendant.

This action was heard on November 22, 1996, by Easton, J., of the Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on January 20, 1997.