Mullaly v. Global Television Network, (2006) 297 N.B.R.(2d) 66 (TD)

• Judge: Grant, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: March 21, 2006
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2006), 297 N.B.R.(2d) 66 (TD);2006 NBQB 99

Mullaly v. Global TV (2006), 297 N.B.R.(2d) 66 (TD);

    297 R.N.-B.(2e) 66; 771 A.P.R. 66

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[English language version only]

[Version en langue anglaise seulement]

Temp. Cite: [2006] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. AP.026

Renvoi temp.: [2006] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. AP.026

Sue Mullaly (plaintiff) v. Global Television Network (defendant)

(S/C/847/03; 2006 NBQB 99; 2006 NBBR 99)

Indexed As: Mullaly v. Global Television Network

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Saint John

Grant, J.

March 21, 2006.

Summary:

Résumé:

The plaintiff, an experienced sales representative for a television network, sued the network for damages for wrongful dismissal.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, allowed the action. The court awarded damages equivalent to 18 months' notice.

Master and Servant - Topic 1912

Remuneration - Bonuses - Entitlement - The plaintiff was a sales representative for a television network - Her remuneration consisted of a base salary plus bonuses if her sales exceeded certain specific amounts - The plaintiff made sales on an account that was eventually transferred away from her - She asked for her bonus - Her superiors told her that she would be eligible for a signing bonus after her performance review - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, ruled that the clear implication of this was that if she got a good review, she would be paid for the work she had done - That was not found anywhere in the plaintiff's compensation agreement and was a breach of the fundamental term of the contract that the network would pay her for selling ads for them - See paragraph 85.

Master and Servant - Topic 2646

Duties of master - Duty of fairness - Respecting remuneration to employee - The plaintiff was a sales representative for a television network - Her remuneration was intimately connected with the assignment and transfer of accounts, for which the network retained discretion - Therefore, the network was in a position to manipulate the plaintiff's overall compensation package by assigning and transferring accounts - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, ruled that such potential manipulation, combined with the restriction the network placed on the plaintiff doing freelance work, placed a duty on the network to make account transfers reasonable and fair to her within the exigencies of the business - See paragraphs 71 to 77.

Master and Servant - Topic 7502

Dismissal or discipline of employees - General principles - What constitutes dismissal or discharge (incl. constructive dismissal) - The plaintiff was a sales representative for a television network - Her remuneration was intimately connected with the assignment and transfer of accounts, for which the network retained discretion - On two occasions, the network transferred accounts away from the plaintiff, resulting in salary reductions - Respecting one particular account, which the plaintiff serviced for 25 years with two networks, 14 of them with the defendant network, the defendant network told her that it had been transferred when in fact, her superior had taken it over - She was then told that the account would not be transferred when in fact the network was still negotiating its transfer - The account was eventually transferred - When she confronted the network with the truth, they gave her a letter of discipline - The plaintiff left the network - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, ruled that the plaintiff was constructively dismissed - See paragraphs 1 to 89.

Master and Servant - Topic 7713

Dismissal or discipline of employees - Damages for wrongful dismissal - Aggravated damages - [See Master and Servant - Topic 8000 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 8000

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dismissal - What constitutes reasonable notice - The plaintiff, aged 52 at judgment time, had 26 years' experience as a television sales representative, the last 14 with the defendant television network who constructively dismissed her - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, awarded the plaintiff damages equivalent to 18 months' notice, calculated as follows: 16 months' actual notice plus four months for the improper manner of her dismissal less a two month deduction from aggravated damages for the plaintiff's sometimes rude and insubordinate attitude - See paragraphs 71 to 100.

Master and Servant - Topic 8007

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dismissal - Reasonable notice - Long service employees dismissed - [See Master and Servant - Topic 8000 ].

Employeurs et employés - Cote 1912

Rémunération - Bonis - Droit - [Voir Master and Servant - Topic 1912 ].

Employeurs et employés - Cote 2646

Devoirs de l'employeur - Devoir d'agir équitablement - Rémunération des employés - [Voir Master and Servant - Topic 2646 ].

Employeurs et employés - Cote 7502

Congédiement d'employés ou mesures disciplinaires - Principes généraux - En quoi consiste le congédiement ou le licenciement (y compris le congédiement implicite) - [Voir Master and Servant - Topic 7502 ].

Employeurs et employés - Cote 7713

Congédiement d'employés ou mesures disciplinaires - Dommages-intérêts pour congédiement injustifié - Dommages-intérêts alourdis - [Voir Master and Servant - Topic 7713 ].

Employeurs et employés - Cote 8000

Congédiement non motivé - Avis de congédiement - Préavis raisonnable, éléments constitutifs - [Voir Master and Servant - Topic 8000 ].

Employeurs et employés - Cote 8007

Congédiement non motivé - Avis de congédiement - Préavis raisonnable - Congédiement d'employés de longue date - [Voir Master and Servant - Topic 8007 ].

Cases Noticed:

Farber v. Compagnie Trust Royal, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 846; 210 N.R. 161, consd. [para. 71].

Dick v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. (2000), 230 N.B.R.(2d) 39; 593 A.P.R. 39 (C.A.), consd. [para. 72].

Shah v. Xerox Canada Ltd. (1998), 77 O.T.C. 171 (Gen. Div.), affd. (2000), 131 O.A.C. 44 (C.A.), consd. [para. 74].

Ilkay v. Acadia Motors Ltd., [2004] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 151 (T.D.), dist. [para. 87].

Barrett v. Sutherland Motors Ltd. (1989), 104 N.B.R.(2d) 222; 261 A.P.R. 222 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 87].

Poole v. Tomenson Saunders Whitehead Ltd. (1987), 43 D.L.R.(4th) 56 (B.C.C.A.), dist. [para. 87].

Zalusky v. Nestle Canada Inc., [1992] B.C.J. No. 2921 (S.C.), dist. [para. 87].

Humphreys v. Murphy Stationery Co., [1996] B.C.T.C. Uned. 613 (S.C.), dist. [para. 87].

Corkum v. Maritime Telegraph & Telephone Co., [1992] N.S.J. No. 173 (S.C.), dist. [para. 87].

Dykes v. Saan Stores Ltd. (2002), 164 Man.R.(2d) 138 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 87].

Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd. (1960), 24 D.L.R.(2d) 140 (Ont. H.C.), appld. [para. 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.), consd. [para. 93].

Lavigne v. CFBC/CJYC Radio Stations - see Lavigne v. Doyle.

Lavigne v. Doyle (1999), 214 N.B.R.(2d) 10; 547 A.P.R. 10 (T.D.), dist. [para. 95].

McBride v. SNC-Lavalin Inc., [2002] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 44 (T.D.), dist. [para. 95].

Dickinson v. Radio Atlantic (CFNB) Ltd. (1991), 123 N.B.R.(2d) 361; 310 A.P.R. 361 (T.D.), dist. [para. 95].

MacDonald v. Tippet-Richardson Ltd. et al. (1996), 181 N.B.R.(2d) 61; 460 A.P.R. 61 (T.D.), affd. (1997), 184 N.B.R.(2d) 179; 469 A.P.R. 179 (C.A.), dist. [para. 95].

Humphrey v. Maritime Paper Products Ltd. (1997), 189 N.B.R.(2d) 245; 482 A.P.R. 245 (T.D.), dist. [para. 95].

Patterson v. Boudreau Sheetmetal (1999) Inc. (2004), 272 N.B.R.(2d) 119; 715 A.P.R. 119 (T.D.), consd. [para. 99].

Fleet v. EPC Industries Ltd. (2004), 276 N.B.R.(2d) 123; 724 A.P.R. 123 (T.D.), consd. [para. 99].

Corbin v. Standard Life Assurance Co. et al. (1996), 167 N.B.R.(2d) 355; 427 A.P.R. 355 (C.A.), consd. [para. 99].

MacNaughton v. Sears Canada Inc. (1997), 186 N.B.R.(2d) 384; 476 A.P.R. 384 (C.A.), consd. [para. 99].

Walsh et al. v. UPM-Kymmene Miramichi Inc. (2003), 257 N.B.R.(2d) 331; 674 A.P.R. 331 (C.A.), consd. [para. 99].

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. 100].

Counsel:

Maria G. Henheffer, Q.C., for the plaintiff;

William B. Goss, Q.C., for the defendant.

Grant, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Saint John, heard this action on August 29, 30, 31, and September 28 and 29, 2005, and delivered the following decision on March 21, 2006.