Rahmath v. Louisiana Land & Exploration Co., (1989) 97 A.R. 246 (CA)

• Judge: Laycraft, C.J.A., Stevenson and Stratton, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: April 13, 1989
• Citations: (1989), 97 A.R. 246 (CA)

Rahmath v. Louisiana Land Co. (1989), 97 A.R. 246 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Mohammed Rahmath (appellant) v. TheLouisiana Land & Exploration Companyand L.L. & E. Canada Ltd. (respondents)

(Appeal No. 19853)

Indexed As: Rahmath v. Louisiana Land & Exploration Co.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Laycraft, C.J.A., Stevenson and Stratton, JJ.A.

April 13, 1989.

Summary:

The plaintiff employee brought an action for damages against his employer for wrongful dismissal.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment not reported in this series of reports, allowed the action.

The employee appealed, submitting that, inter alia, the trial judge erred in his method of fixing the period of reasonable notice.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Damages - Topic 6744

Contracts - Employment contract - Breach by employer - Loss of fringe benefits - A dismissed employee lost the benefit of employer-paid insurance benefits - The employer claimed there was no compensable loss during the period of reasonable notice where there was no event giving rise to a claim during that time - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the employee was entitled to the worth of the benefit which would otherwise have been provided during the period of reasonable notice.

Master and Servant - Topic 8000

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dismissal - Reasonable notice - What constitutes - A previously self-employed 37 year old skilled professional was wrongfully dismissed after two years' employment - Earning $60,000.00 at time of dismissal - The Alberta Court of Appeal fixed the period of reasonable notice at four months.

Master and Servant - Topic 8003

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dismissal - Reasonable notice - Considerations affecting - An employer submitted that if it offered a wrongfully dismissed employee notice within a reasonable range, there should be "curial deference" to the employer's decision - The Alberta Court of Appeal rejected the approach - The court stated that what constituted reasonable notice was a question of fact to be determined by the court; that it was not the function of the court to accept an employer's offer, although less than what the court would find, if the offer was reasonable.

Cases Noticed:

McKee v. N.C.R. Canada Ltd. (1986), 10 C.C.E.L. 128 (Ont. S.C.), refd to. [para. 2].

Heinz v. Cana Co. Ltd. (1987), 82 A.R. 197, agreed with [para. 3].

Bardal v. Globe and Mail Ltd. (1960), 24 D.L.R.(2d) 140 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Smith v. Tamblyn (Alta.) Ltd. et al. (1979), 23 A.R. 53; 9 Alta. L.R.(2d) 174 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 4].

Bagby v. Gustavson International Drilling Co. Ltd. et al. (1980), 25 A.R. 181, refd to. [para. 4].

Counsel:

B.V. Weldon, for the appellant;

W.J. Johnson, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 10, 1989, before Laycraft, C.J.A., Stevenson and Stratton, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On April 13, 1989, Stevenson, J.A., delivered the following memorandum of judgment for the Court of Appeal.