Panton v. Everywoman's Health Centre Society (1988), (2000) 144 B.C.A.C. 179 (CA)

• Judge: Esson, Newbury and Saunders, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: November 17, 2000
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2000), 144 B.C.A.C. 179 (CA);2000 BCCA 621

Panton v. Everywoman's Health (2000), 144 B.C.A.C. 179 (CA);

    236 W.A.C. 179

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JA.005

Margaret Panton (plaintiff/appellant) v. Everywoman's Health Centre Society (1988) (defendant/respondent)

(CA025089; 2000 BCCA 621)

Indexed As: Panton v. Everywoman's Health Centre Society (1988)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Esson, Newbury and Saunders, JJ.A.

November 17, 2000.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued her former employer for damages for wrongful dismissal.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. B96, dismissed the action, finding that the dismissal was for just cause. The plaintiff appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Newbury, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the trial court for assessment of damages.

Evidence - Topic 12

General and definitions - What constitutes a question of law and fact - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the issue of cause for dismissal was one of mixed fact and law - See paragraph 7.

Master and Servant - Topic 7550

Dismissal of employees - Grounds - Cause or just cause defined - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that in general, just cause was employee behav­iour that, viewed in all the circumstances, was seriously incompatible with the em­ployee's duties, conduct which went to the root of the contract and fundamentally struck at the employment relationship - See paragraph 28.

Master and Servant - Topic 7552

Dismissal of employees - Grounds - Neglect or failure to discharge duties - [See second Master and Servant - Topic 7554 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 7554

Dismissal of employees - Grounds - Wilful disobedience or insubordination - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that in order for disobedience to constitute cause for dismissal, the direction disobeyed must be clear and lawful and the act of disobedience wilful and one of substance - See paragraph 33.

Master and Servant - Topic 7554

Dismissal of employees - Grounds - Wilful disobedience or insubordination - The clinical administrator of a women's abortion and reproductive counselling clinic was dismissed, for alleged non-compliance with a directive to deliver the clinic's security logbooks to Crown counsel for use in a prosecution concerning the constitutionality of the Access to Abortion Services Act - The administrator told counsel she would not be a willing witness in the prosecution if the logs were used but did not advise the clinic of her terms - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that on the evidence, there was no disobedience, undermining of the clinic's decision or failure to communicate suffi­cient to constitute just cause - See para­graphs 24 to 49.

Cases Noticed:

Mitchell v. Nanaimo District Teachers' Association et al. (1994), 48 B.C.A.C. 194; 78 W.A.C. 194; 94 B.C.L.R.(2d) 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Toneguzzo-Norvell et al. v. Savein and Burnaby Hospital, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 114; 162 N.R. 161; 38 B.C.A.C. 193; 62 W.A.C. 193, refd to. [para. 7].

Van Mol et al. v. Ashmore (1999), 116 B.C.A.C. 161; 190 W.A.C. 161; 58 B.C.L.R.(3d) 305 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Pearce v. Foster (1886), 17 Q.B.D. 536, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Arthurs; Ex parte Port Arthur Shipbuilding Co., [1967] 2 O.R. 49; 62 D.L.R.(2d) 342 (C.A.), revd. [1969] S.C.R. 85, refd to. [para. 26].

Page v. Pattison (Jim) Industries, [1984] 4 W.W.R. 481; 33 Sask.R. 253; 10 D.L.R.(4th) 430 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Heyes v. First City Trust Co. (1981), 12 A.C.W.S.(2d) 105 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Stein v. British Columbia (Housing Management Commission) (1992), 65 B.C.L.R.(2d) 181 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Wells v. Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses Union (1986), 57 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 67; 170 A.P.R. 67 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 40].

Counsel:

R.H. Hamilton, Q.C., for the appellant;

D.G. Crane, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on May 19, 2000, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Esson, Newbury and Saunders, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

On November 17, 2000, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Saunders, J.A. (Esson, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 51;

Newbury, J.A., dissenting - see para­graphs 52 to 57.