Wedewer v. Hoodoo No. 401 (Rural Municipality), (2004) 255 Sask.R. 194 (QB)

• Judge: Chicoine, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: October 25, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2004), 255 Sask.R. 194 (QB);2004 SKQB 419

Wedewer v. Hoodoo No. 401 (2004), 255 Sask.R. 194 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] Sask.R. TBEd. NO.057

Reginald Wedewer (plaintiff) v. The Rural Municipality of Hoodoo No. 401 (defendant)

(2001 Q.B.G. No. 33; 2004 SKQB 419)

Indexed As: Wedewer v. Hoodoo No. 401 (Rural Municipality)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Humboldt

Chicoine, J.

October 25, 2004.

Summary:

The plaintiff worked as a seasonal grader operator for a Rural Municipality from 1990 until 1999. The plaintiff sued the Rural Municipality for damages for wrongful dismissal.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the plaintiff was dismissed without just cause and awarded him damages based on a reasonable notice period of seven months.

Master and Servant - Topic 1266

Contract of hiring (employment contract) - Variation - Unilateral change of terms or conditions - The plaintiff was a farmer and it was understood when he was hired by a Rural Municipality as a seasonal grader operator in 1990 that he required time off for seeding and harvesting - That arrangement worked well until 1999 when the RM received complaints about road conditions and decided that the plaintiff would have to give priority to road work - In November 1999, the matter was discussed with the plaintiff, but he made no commitment to discontinue his practice of taking time off for farming - When the plaintiff returned to work in the spring of 2000, he was asked to confirm that he would not be asking for time off to do farm work - The plaintiff would not make that commitment - He was told to pack up and not return - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the ability to take time off for seeding and harvesting was a fundamental term of the plaintiff's employment contract and that the plaintiff was dismissed without just cause - Even if the plaintiff's indication that he would continue to require time off for farming could be construed as refusing an offer of full-time employment, the court still concluded that the plaintiff was constructively dismissed because he was not given adequate notice of a fundamental change in his terms of employment - The November 1999 meeting did not constitute notice that the RM intended to change the terms of the plaintiff's employment - See paragraphs 22 to 33.

Master and Servant - Topic 7502

Dismissal of employees - What constitutes dismissal or discharge (incl. constructive dismissal) - [See Master and Servant - Topic 1266 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 7904

Dismissal without cause - Circumstances when dismissal not justified - [See Master and Servant - Topic 1266 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 8000

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dismissal - What constitutes reasonable notice - The plaintiff worked as a seasonal grader operator for a Rural Municipality from 1990 until he was dismissed without just cause in 1999 - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that, taking into account the plaintiff's age, the length of service, the kind of work involved, the seasonal nature of the employment, and the fact that the plaintiff was restricted to finding work in a limited geographical area in order to accommodate his farm operation, a reasonable notice period was seven months - See paragraph 34 to 38.

Cases Noticed:

Bardal v. Globe and Mail Ltd. (1960), 24 D.L.R.(2d) 140 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

Lefebvre v. HOJ Industries Ltd.; Machtinger v. HOJ Industries Ltd., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 986; 136 N.R. 40; 53 O.A.C. 200, refd to. [para. 35].

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. [para. 35].

Hildebrandt v. Wakaw Lake Regional Park Authority et al. (1999), 175 Sask.R. 207 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 39].

Jordison v. Caledonian Curling Co-operative Ltd., [2000] 4 W.W.R. 581; 190 Sask.R. 32; 2000 SKQB 55, refd to. [para. 39].

Michaels et al. v. Red Deer College, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 324; 5 N.R. 99; [1975] 5 W.W.R. 575, refd to. [para. 40].

Janke v. Cenalta Oilwell Servicing Ltd. et al., [1997] 3 W.W.R. 406; 152 Sask.R. 32; 140 W.A.C. 32 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Christie, Innis, England, Geoffrey, and Cotter, W. Brent, Employment Law in Canada (2nd Ed. 1993), p. 547 [para. 28].

Counsel:

Russell P. Weber, for the plaintiff;

J. Ronald Cherkewich, for the defendant.

This action was heard before Chicoine, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Humboldt, who delivered the following judgment on October 25, 2004.