Singh v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, 2001 BCCA 695

• Judge: Ryan, Saunders and Proudfoot, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: Friday April 27, 2001
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2001 BCCA 695;(2001), 161 B.C.A.C. 53 (CA)

Singh v. B.C. Hydro (2001), 161 B.C.A.C. 53 (CA);

    263 W.A.C. 53

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] B.C.A.C. TBEd. DE.002

Atamah Singh (plaintiff/appellant) v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (defendant/respondent)

(CA026982; 2001 BCCA 695)

Indexed As: Singh v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Ryan, Saunders and Proudfoot, JJ.A.

December 4, 2001.

Summary:

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

The British Columbia Supreme Court, on an application under rule 18A, dismissed the plaintiff's action. The plaintiff appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 8311

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - General - Application - Nongovernmental or private interference - The British Columbia Court of Appeal opined that the Charter did not apply to actions for breach of an employment con­tract/wrongful dis­missal - See paragraph 45.

Master and Servant - Topic 1154

Contract of hiring (employment contract) - Implied terms - Job security - The Brit­ish Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that memoranda issued to employees of BC Hydro did not form a contractual offer for lifetime employment - See paragraphs 32 to 37.

Master and Servant - Topic 8000

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dis­missal - Reasonable notice - What consti­tutes - The plaintiff started employment with BC Hydro in 1976 as a janitor - On January 17, 1995, he was terminated as part of a company-wide reorganization and restructuring - He was then a mail room supervisor, a lower management position - The plaintiff was absent from work from October 24, 1994 until January 1995, but was returning to work gradually when terminated - BC Hydro fostered a climate of job security - Only just before termina­tion did it cease such promises - The com­pany had a stated policy of relo­cating long-time employees in times of reorganiz­ation - The plaintiff was given 2.5 months' notice plus 18 months' salary - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff was entitled to 27 months' reason­able notice - See para­graphs 46 to 54.

Master and Servant - Topic 8007

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

Cases Noticed:

Rahemtulla v. Vanfed Credit Union (1984), 51 B.C.L.R. 200 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

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, reving. in part 102 Man.R.(2d) 161; 93 W.A.C. 161; 14 C.C.E.L.(2d) 41 (C.A.), consd. [para. 27].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Waddams, Stephen M., The Law of Con­tracts (4th Ed. 1999), p. 105 [para. 32].

Counsel:

The appellant, on his own behalf;

P.F.J. Lewis, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Ryan, Saun­ders and Proudfoot, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, at Vancouver, British Columbia, on April 27, 2001. The decision of the court was delivered on December 4, 2001, by Ryan, J.A.