Turner v. Uniglobe Custom Travel Ltd. et al., (2005) 383 A.R. 70 (QB)

• Judge: Moore, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 15, 2005
• Citations: (2005), 383 A.R. 70 (QB);2005 ABQB 513

Turner v. Uniglobe Custom Travel Ltd. (2005), 383 A.R. 70 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] A.R. TBEd. JL.185

Heather Turner (plaintiff) v. Uniglobe Custom Travel Ltd., Cassard Holdings Ltd., Beth Gardner, Richard Gardner, Paul Verhoeff and Uniglobe Custom Travel (defendants)

(0201 05782; 2005 ABQB 513)

Indexed As: Turner v. Uniglobe Custom Travel Ltd. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Moore, J.

July 7, 2005.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued the defendants for damages for wrongful dismissal.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the action.

Master and Servant - Topic 1002

Contract of hiring (employment contract) - General - What constitutes - [See Master and Servant - Topic 8002 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 1024

Contract of hiring (employment contract) - Parties - Employer - What constitutes - The plaintiff had been employed by one or more of the defendants for 15.5 years - She was informed that she was laid off "effective immediately" - The plaintiff sued for damages for wrongful dismissal - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the action - The plaintiff had named two corporate and three individual defendants (Beth, Richard and Verhoeff) - The plaintiff knew that Beth was one person operating and controlling the trade name entity - Verhoeff fired Beth and therefore also had authority at the corporation - Richard also had authority where he took Beth's position - Accordingly, from the plaintiff's perspective, Verhoeff, Beth and Richard were her employers - The plaintiff was granted judgment jointly and severally against the individual defendants - See paragraphs 76 to 88.

Master and Servant - Topic 1230

Contract of hiring (employment contract) - Termination - Notice of termination - By employer - The plaintiff had been employed by one or more of the defendants for 15.5 years - She was informed that she was laid off "effective immediately" - The defendants retained the right to recall the plaintiff within 60 days under ss. 62, 63 and 64 of the Employment Standards Code of Alberta - The plaintiff viewed the layoff as a dismissal and threatened legal action - The defendants ignored the warning and later tried to recall the plaintiff - The plaintiff sued for damages for wrongful dismissal - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the action - The court held that the defendants failed to give the plaintiff "fair and equitable" notice notwithstanding that they had several opportunities to do so - See paragraphs 11 to 27.

Master and Servant - Topic 7502

Dismissal or discipline of employees - General principles - What constitutes dismissal or discharge (incl. constructive dismissal) - The plaintiff had been employed by one or more of the defendants for 15.5 years - She was informed that she was laid off "effective immediately" - The defendants retained the right to recall the plaintiff within 60 days under ss. 62, 63 and 64 of the Employment Standards Code of Alberta - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the interrelationship between s. 3(1) (civil remedies) and ss. 62, 63 and 64 - Section 62 allowed an employer to temporarily lay off an employee without terminating the employment relationship and it was only at the expiry of the 60 day period contemplated in s. 63(1) that the employee's employment relationship terminated - At issue was whether s. 3(1) superseded ss. 62, 63 and 64 - The court held that the plaintiff's common law right to treat her lay off as a termination was preserved and she was entitled to compensation for wrongful dismissal - See paragraphs 42 to 56.

Master and Servant - Topic 7997

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dismissal - Notice - What constitutes - The plaintiff had been employed by one or more of the defendants for 15.5 years - She was informed that she was laid off "effective immediately" - The defendants retained the right to recall the plaintiff within 60 days under ss. 62, 63 and 64 of the Employment Standards Code of Alberta - The plaintiff viewed the layoff as a dismissal and threatened legal action - The defendants ignored the warning and later tried to recall the plaintiff - The plaintiff sued for damages for wrongful dismissal - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the action - The court held that the defendants failed to give the plaintiff appropriate notice - The defendants argued that, in an indirect way, they gave the plaintiff adequate notice by way of an email which gave the link to a website on employment standards - The court held that this did not constitute adequate notice - See paragraphs 28 to 35.

Master and Servant - Topic 7998

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dismissal - When required - [See Master and Servant - Topic 1230 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 8000

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dismissal - What constitutes reasonable notice - The 37 year old plaintiff had been employed by one or more of the defendants for 15.5 years - She was an exemplary employee, dedicated and loyal - The plaintiff had a high school diploma and no formal accounting training - She was responsible for four offices and oversaw the accounting department and the day to day operations - The defendants laid off the plaintiff pursuant to ss. 62, 63 and 64 of the Employment Standards Code - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the plaintiff had been constructively dismissed - The court held that the reasonable notice period was 11 months - See paragraphs 64 to 67.

Master and Servant - Topic 8002

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dismissal - Reasonable notice - Effect of company rules or policy - The plaintiff had been employed by one or more of the defendants for 15.5 years - After 13 years of employment, the plaintiff had signed the policies manual acknowledgement - She was informed that she was laid off "effective immediately" - The defendants retained the right to recall the plaintiff within 60 days under ss. 62, 63 and 64 of the Employment Standards Code of Alberta - The plaintiff viewed the layoff as a dismissal and threatened legal action - The defendants ignored the warning and later tried to recall the plaintiff - The plaintiff sued the for damages for wrongful dismissal - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the action - The court rejected the defendants' argument that the company policy manual was a contract - The policies manual did not constitute a contract between the plaintiff and the defendants - In any event, the defendants could not rely on the policy - The defendants never gave the plaintiff eight weeks notice or eight weeks severance pay in lieu of notice - If it was a contract, the defendants could not rely upon it because the defendants did not perform - If it was a contract, the defendants fundamentally breached and repudiated the contract - See paragraphs 36 to 41.

Master and Servant - Topic 8064

Dismissal without cause - Damages - Mitigation - The plaintiff had been employed by one or more of the defendants for 15.5 years - She was informed that she was laid off "effective immediately" - The defendants retained the right to recall the plaintiff - The plaintiff viewed the layoff as a dismissal and threatened legal action - The defendants ignored the warning and later tried to recall the plaintiff - The plaintiff sued for damages for wrongful dismissal - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the action - The defendants argued that the plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages by failing to return to work when the defendants recalled her - The court rejected the argument - The plaintiff would have been taking a gamble by returning to work where there was no guarantee that she would not be laid off again - The plaintiff had found alternate employment after five months - She had not failed to mitigate her damages - See paragraphs 68 to 75.

Master and Servant - Topic 8402

Employment and labour standards - Layoff or dismissal - What constitutes - [See Master and Servant - Topic 7502 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 8405

Employment and labour standards - Layoff or dismissal - Dismissal without cause - What constitutes - [See Master and Servant - Topic 7502 ].

Cases Noticed:

Vrana v. Procor Ltd. (2004), 346 A.R. 389; 320 W.A.C. 389; 2004 ABCA 126, consd. [para. 12].

Rahemtulla v. Vanfed Credit Union, [1984] 3 W.W.R. 296 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 38].

Vrana v. Procor Ltd. (2003), 337 A.R. 112 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 43].

Style v. Carlingview Airport Inn (1996), 90 O.A.C. 83; 18 C.C.E.L.(2d) 163 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 46, Schedule A].

Martellacci v. CFC/INX Ltd. (1997), 28 C.C.E.L.(2d) 75 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 47].

Collins v. Pattison (Jim) Industries Ltd. (1995), 7 B.C.L.R.(3d) 13; 11 C.C.E.L.(2d) 74 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 48, Schedule A].

Glover v. SNC Lavalin Inc. (1998), 229 A.R. 41; 1998 ABQB 752, refd to. [para. 51, Schedule A].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 55].

Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd., [1960] O.W.N. 253; 24 D.L.R.(2d) 140 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 64].

Bagby v. Gustavson International Drilling Co. (1980), 24 A.R. 181 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

Christianson v. North Hill News Inc. (1993), 145 A.R. 58; 55 W.A.C. 58; 49 C.C.E.L. 182 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

Pauloski v. Nascor Inc. (2002), 311 A.R. 67; 2002 ABQB 171, refd to. [para. 70, Schedule A].

Bodnarus v. Buchok et al. (2000), 148 Man.R.(2d) 81; 224 W.A.C. 81; 2000 MBCA 53, refd to. [para. 88].

Bodnarus v. McGregor Centre Holdings Ltd. - see Bodnarus v. Buchok et al.

Farber v. Compagnie Trust Royal, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 846; 210 N.R. 161; 145 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [Schedule A].

Pathak v. Jannock Steel Fabricating Co. et al. (1999), 228 A.R. 312; 188 W.A.C. 312; 1999 ABCA 8, refd to. [Schedule A].

Pathak v. Jannock Steel Fabricating Co. et al. (1999), 237 A.R. 129; 197 W.A.C. 129; 70 Alta. L.R.(3d) 352; 1999 ABCA 173, refd to. [Schedule A].

Pathak v. Jannock Steel Fabricating Co. et al. (1996), 186 A.R. 277 (Q.B.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Stolze v. Addario et al. (1997), 105 O.A.C. 266; 36 O.R.(3d) 323 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

McHugh v. Fitness Canada Health Spa Ltd. (1996), 2 O.T.C. 219; 22 C.C.E.L.(2d) 34 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Chen v. Sigpro Wireless Inc., [2004] O.T.C. 466 (Sup. Ct.), affd. [2005] O.A.C. Uned. 165 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Hokanson v. Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 280 (1985), 12 C.C.E.L. 231 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Martino v. York Transportation Group, [2000] C.L.A.C. No. 508 (Can.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Rahemtulla v. Vanfed Credit Union (1984), 51 B.C.L.R. 200; 4 C.C.E.L. 170 (S.C.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Singh v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (2001), 161 B.C.A.C. 53; 263 W.A.C. 53; 2001 BCCA 695, refd to. [Schedule A].

Addison v. Loeb (M.) Ltd. (1986), 13 O.A.C. 392; 11 C.C.E.L. 100; 25 D.L.R.(4th) 151 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

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, refd to. [Schedule A].

Radwan v. Arteif Furniture Manufacturing Inc. (2002), 321 A.R. 353; 2002 ABQB 742, refd to. [Schedule A].

Crisall v. Western Pontiac Buick GMC (1999) Ltd. (2003), 13 Alta. L.R.(4th) 104; 2003 ABQB 255, refd to. [Schedule A].

Turner v. Westburne Electrical Inc., [2004] A.R. Uned. 572; 36 C.C.E.L.(3d) 227; 2004 ABQB 605, refd to. [Schedule A].

Tanton v. Crane Canada Inc. (2000), 278 A.R. 137; 2000 ABQB 837, refd to. [Schedule A].

Shah v. Xerox Canada Ltd. (2000), 131 O.A.C. 44; 49 C.C.E.L.(2d) 166 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Bramble et al. v. Medis Health and Pharmaceutical Services Inc. (1999), 214 N.B.R.(2d) 111; 547 A.P.R. 111; 175 D.L.R.(4th) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Farmer v. Foxridge Homes Ltd. et al. (1994), 149 A.R. 139; 63 W.A.C. 139; 18 Alta. L.R.(3d) 182 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Farmer v. Foxridge Homes Ltd. et al. (1992), 134 A.R. 55; 6 Alta. L.R.(3d) 150 (Q.B.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Hildebrand v. Culinar Inc. (1996), 108 Man.R.(2d) 70; 17 C.C.E.L.(2d) 137 (Q.B.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Mazur v. International Paper Canada Inc. (1998), 234 A.R. 120; 1998 ABQB 1060, refd to. [Schedule A].

Ellsworth v. Murray Canada Inc. (1997), 51 O.T.C. 39; 33 C.C.E.L.(2d) 253 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Kuz v. CIBC Trust Corp., [1998] A.J. No. 1532 (Q.B.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Shuya v. Azon Canada Inc., [1995] 8 W.W.R. 156; 29 Alta. L.R.(3d) 56 (Q.B.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Monti v. Hamilton-Wentworth (Regional Municipality) (1999), 102 O.T.C. 279; 45 C.C.E.L.(2d) 230 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Hamilton v. Doman Industries Ltd., [1992] B.C.T.C. Uned. A54; 44 C.C.E.L. 94 (S.C.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Johnson v. Moncton Chrysler Dodge (1980) Ltd. (1990), 104 N.B.R.(2d) 315; 261 A.P.R. 315 (T.D.), revd. (1991), 114 N.B.R.(2d) 192; 289 A.P.R. 192; 34 C.C.E.L. 164 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Canada Safeway Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 454 and Hardy, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1079; 226 N.R. 319; 168 Sask.R. 104; 173 W.A.C. 104; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [Schedule A].

Cayen v. Woodwards Stores Ltd. (1993), 22 B.C.A.C. 32; 38 W.A.C. 32; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 294; 45 C.C.E.L. 264 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Damery v. Matchless Inc. (1996), 151 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 440 A.P.R. 321; 22 C.C.E.L.(2d) 272 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 38].

Dhanoa v. Multi-Lingual Orientation Service Association for Immigrant Communities (1995), 10 C.C.E.L.(2d) 314 (S.C.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Duplessis v. Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd., J.D. Irving Ltd. and Irving (183), 47 N.B.R.(2d) 11; 124 A.P.R. 11; 1 C.C.E.L. 196 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Greene v. Chrysler Canada Ltd. (1982), 38 B.C.L.R. 347; 7 C.C.E.L. 166 (S.C.), affd. (1983), 7 C.C.E.L. 166 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

MacKenzie v. Atlantic Neon & Plastic Signs Ltd. (1986), 68 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 175 A.P.R. 271; 14 C.C.E.L. 52 (T.D.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Michaels et al. v. Red Deer College, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 324; 5 N.R. 99; [1975] 5 W.W.R. 575; 57 D.L.R.(3d) 386, refd to. [Schedule A].

Mifsud v. MacMillan Bathurst Inc. (1989), 35 O.A.C. 356; 70 O.R.(2d) 701; 28 C.C.E.L. 228 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Poulos v. Murphy Oil Co., [1990] 5 W.W.R. 696; 108 A.R. 188 (Q.B.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Saik v. Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., [2001] A.R. Uned. 457; 2001 ABQB 986, refd to. [Schedule A].

Smith v. Viking Helicopter Ltd. (1989), 31 O.A.C. 368; 68 O.R.(2d) 228; 24 C.C.E.L. 113 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Stefanovic v. SNC Inc. (1988), 22 C.C.E.L. 82 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [Schedule A].

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (U.A.W.) v. Wilco-Canada Inc., [1983] O.L.R.B. Rep. 989; 3 C.L.R.B.R.(N.S.) 257 (Lab. Rel. Bd.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Bohemier v. Storwal International Inc. (1982), 40 O.R.(2d) 264; 142 D.L.R.(3d) 8 (H.C.), affd. (1983), 3 C.C.E.L. 79 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Conway v. George's Farm Centre Ltd. (1986), 69 A.R. 82; 44 Alta. L.R.(2d) 115 (Q.B.), refd to. [Schedule A].

D'Onofrio v. Dowell Schlumberger Canada Inv. (1988), 94 A.R. 34 (Q.B.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Frost v. Montreal Engineering Co. (1983), 30 Alta. L.R.(2d) 354: 3 C.C.E.L. 86 (Q.B.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Sarton v. Fluor Canada Ltd. (1986), 73 A.R. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Buchanan v. Continental Bank of Canada (1984), 58 N.B.R.(2d) 333; 151 A.P.R. 333 (Q.B.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Kadash v. Kipling Credit Union Ltd. (1987), 56 Sask.R. 295 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Levesque v. Sherwood Credit Union, [2000] 8 W.W.R. 320; 196 Sask.R. 176; 2000 SKQB 286, refd to. [Schedule A].

Datardina v. Royal Trust Corp. of Canada (1995), 60 B.C.A.C. 109; 99 W.A.C. 109; 6 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1; 12 C.C.E.L.(2d) 86 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Leahy v. Western Concrete Finishers Ltd. (1988), 71 Sask.R. 140; 23 C.C.E.L. 200 (Q.B.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Cox v. Royal Trust Corp. of Canada (1989), 33 O.A.C. 95; 26 C.C.E.L. 203 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1989] 2 S.C.R. x; 105 N.R. 75; 37 O.A.C. 395, refd to. [Schedule A].

Blackburn v. Coyle Motors (1983), 44 O.R.(2d) 690; 3 C.C.E.L. 1 (H.C.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Statutes Noticed:

Employment Standards Code, R.S.A. 2000, c. E-9, sect. 3(1), sect. 62, sect. 63, sect. 64 [para. 42].

Authors and Works Noticed:

C.E.D. - see Canadian Encyclopedic Digest.

Canadian Encyclopedic Digest (Ont.), p. 482, sect. 7(b)(ii) [Schedule A].

Cheshire, Geoffrey Chevalier, Fifoot, Cecil Herbert Stuart, and Furmston, M.P., The Law of Contract (14th Ed. 2001), p. 685 [para. 74].

Harris, David, Wrongful Dismissal (2004 Looseleaf Update), pp. 3-44.4 to 3-47 [Schedule A].

Mole, Ellen E., Wrongful Dismissal Practice Manual (1999 Looseleaf), paras. 10.45, 10.46, 10.46.1 [Schedule A].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), pp. 1013, 1014 [Schedule A].

Counsel:

A. Julien Landry, Q.C., for the plaintiff;

S. Leonard Polsky, for the defendants.

This action was heard on April 15, 2005, by Moore, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on July 7, 2005.