| Case
Shown in Date Order |
Details | Aggravated
Other Claims |
Punitive |
| Appellate Decisions in Bold | The narrative reviews of aggravated damages and punitive damages are found as noted. Awards for unfair conduct in a disability insurance claim are reviewed here | ||
| Rosenberg v Northern Nursing Solutions
Alberta Court of Justice Nov 2024
|
Employer failed to pay wages from September to December; Owing as of termination date was $30,000, which was reduced post termination to $14,388. Damages based on Bhasin, as opposed to Honda. | $30,000 Bhasin | |
| Scarrow v Walkey
OSC July 8 2024 |
Re Aggravated: Plff was constructively dismissed by request that he return from temporary lay-off, continue to receive EI benefits, which sum was to be increased by cash payment to equal prior salary;
Promise of retirement allowance which was not fulfilled. Retirement allowance was promised to be 8% to 10% of non-voting shares. Sum was set at $250,000. Re Punitive: Failed to pay ESA sum. Def “has behaved in a heartless and cowardly way. He continued to ask Mr. Scarrow to work for four months but apparently had no intention of paying Mr. Scarrow even this low wage. Mr. Walkey placed his sports betting ahead of his loyal employee’s care.” No defence was filed. Personal defendant attended trial without legal counsel. |
$50,000 | $20,000 |
| Wilds v Gibson Building Supplies
OSC June 14, 2024 |
Employer failed to pay minimum ESA sums, issued R o E very late, failed to pay legitimate business expenses; failed to correct its misgivings when such was known. A modest sum of punitive damages was in order. | $10,000 | |
|
PDF above Not reported as of December 2024 June 11, 2024 B.C.S.C |
Defendants represented to plff a scheme by which he could receive CERB and also be engaged as a contractor from April 1 to June 30 2000 and then return to full time employment and receive a “bonus” equal to his missed regular salary of $11,000. The defendants represented that this was a legal proposal. This was determined to be a fraudulent and/or negligent misstatement. The defs then failed to pay the “bonus” sum.
Plff received a letter allegedly from a shareholder representative threatening to sue the plff for $3 Million for breaching alleged fiduciary duties and failing to provide fair notice of his “resignation”. Trial judge found that this letter was at the impetus of the defs. Defs also commenced other actions in provincial court against the plff which were without merit and abandoned. Special costs also awarded due to litigation tactics of delay and intimidation. At trial, defendants were not represented by legal counsel. |
$50,000
Award of “bonus” sum of $11,000 promised due to misrepresentation |
$50,000 |
| Krmpotk v Thunder Bay Electronics
OCA May 2024 Trial decision not reported |
Employer asserted financial reasons for the termination, yet refused to produce relevant documents to support this. Trial judge had found, as OCA agreed, that the reason for termination was due to physical issues suffered by the plaintiff. No medical evidence was provided and none was needed for the aggravated damage claim. | $50,000 | |
| Stride v. Syra Group
OSC April 4 2024
|
Plff, property administrator in apartment building, was suffering from psychiatric issues due to harassment by tenants. She was terminated while on medical leave when employer was aware of the reasons, as above. Employer tried to evict her by using falsified employment contract. Employer failed to pay ESA.
Employer failed to investigate the complaint of sexual harassment, had no policies in place to address workplace violence. Damage award was based on failure to comply with “the Acts”, referring to Human Rights Code, Occupational Health and Safety Act & Employment Standards Act. |
$50,000
$125,000 |
|
| Lalata v Carstar Downsview
Small Claims Court March 14 2024 |
Employer made insensitive remark on termination that plff should look for new job as his son needs it, referring to the plff’s autistic son;
Failed to pay ESA sum including vacation pay; Failed to provide written letter of termination as required by ESA; Subsequent denial that plff had been terminated; All of which had devastating impact on plff. |
$10,000 | |
| Klyn v Pentax Canada
BCSC March 2024
|
Employer failed to honour its clear contractual obligation. The implicit threat to withhold payments to which the employee was legally entitled is not only oppressive but reprehensible. | $25,000 | |
| Koshman v. Controlex Corporation
OSC Dec 2023 |
Rather than terminate with fair notice, def set out to destroy reputation of plff.
In the course of the litigation, def upgraded her attack on plff by advancing groundless allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, a defence which was ultimately abandoned.
Def made a baseless counterclaim in this action; maintained the position that the plaintiff was dismissed for cause and sought repayment of the eight weeks severance the defendant paid out at the time of termination. Def caused the defendant to default on the order of the court to appoint new counsel and caused the defendant to abandon the defence of this proceeding; Def simply chose not to attend the trial with no communication to the court or to plaintiff’s counsel of any kind.
Case was undefended |
$50,000 | $50,000 |
| Chalmers v Airways Transit
OSC Oct 2023 |
Employer failed to recall plff following Covid lay-off. Plff was required to wait and rely on the limited communication or feedback offered by Airways Transit. Argument that statutory lay-off should be not considered termination also failed.
|
$30,000 | |
| Beaumont v Beaumont
OSC October 2023 |
Employer withheld wages due to two plaintiffs, following delivery of notice of resignation in each instance | $75,000 in favour of each of two plaintiffs | |
| Zheng v China Southern Airlines Company
BCSC October 2023
|
employer placed plff on sudden and immediate administrative leave without being advised of the reason;
Plff ordered Ms. Zheng to leave the office and her belongings were searched in a callous and humiliating manner; Employer alleged plff regularly copying highly confidential documents and sending them to third parties in violation of her confidentiality agreement with CSA; Employer prohibited plff from speaking with CSA employees during her administrative leave; Employer conducted a biased and inadequate investigation into these allegations of misconduct; Employer alleged that they discovered “financial irregularities” related to Ms. Zheng in the course of the investigation, which they stated may result in legal proceedings; Employer harassed plff to come into work on one day’s notice to discuss the results of the investigation despite having a copy of her doctors note explaining that she was unwell and had been advised not to work; Employer threatened plff with legal proceedings if she did not return the confidential information that they alleged was still in her possession following her termination and consent to an inspection of all of her electronic devices; and Employer notified other employers in the industry of Ms. Zheng’s firing, damaging her reputation.
|
$35,000 | $75,000 |
| Café de Foret v Cho
Sept 2023 BCCA Trial decision of Shergill, J. Sept 2022 |
Employee terminated due to allegations of sexual harassment. Harassment was found but not of termination grade. Trial judge awarded composite sum of $25,000 for aggravated and punitive damages. B.C.C.A. amended this to one award of aggravated damages of $25,000. | $25,000 | |
| Elmsdale Landscaping v Hiltz
August 2023 Nova Scotia CA |
The employer was not candid with Mr. Hiltz about the suspension, its duration or any conditions that may have ended it.
Plff advised that he was laid off due to work shortage, yet the company continued to hire additional employees for its busy season. It was clear that Mr. Hiltz specifically was not to be recalled to work, even as work was available. Elmsdale had intimate personal knowledge and experience with this worker developed over the course of 17 years. Elmsdale had made meaningful accommodations for Mr. Hiltz over that time to support his personal circumstances. It was an act of bad faith for those personal accommodations to be the subject of Mr. Coupar’s call to Mr. Hiltz by calling him ‘bad with money’.
|
$15,000 | |
| Teljeur v. Aurora Hotel Group
OSC Feb 2023 |
Employer failed to make ESA payment on timely basis. It also withheld payment of expenses due to the plaintiff. Employer misled plaintiff as to expected payment of ESA. | $15,000 | |
| Chu v China Southern Airlines
BCSC Jan 2023 |
The employer was duplicitous and unfair in its dealings with the plaintiff. It demoted the plaintiff to entry-level, front-line services positions, substantially reduced his pay, and began taking steps to manufacture cause for dismissal or to induce the plaintiff to resign.
Plff was unfairly disciplined and threatened with termination on multiple occasions. The employer began unfairly criticizing the plaintiff’s work, inventing failings, and creating an unfair, self-serving and inaccurate disciplinary record, in support of eventual allegations of cause for dismissal. The plaintiff previously had an impeccable record of service. The unfair discipline was carried out in humiliating and embarrassing ways, including public reprimands, yelling at the plaintiff, on one occasion throwing an item at him (the computer mouse), and requiring him to attend meetings where his faults and failures were enumerated. The plaintiff was compelled to sign letters of reprimand that he did not agree with—specifically, a letter dated February 22, 2018, and another undated letter that followed. Given his age, experience, and former position as Marketing and Business Development Manager, the plaintiff’s reassignments without consultation to entry-level positions in the customer service and airport station positions were humiliating. The plaintiff was assigned to work at the airport terminal when the employer knew or ought to have known he could not possibly do the work to its satisfaction. He was set up for failure. The employer’s treatment of the plaintiff in relation to this position was cruel and insensitive. After unilaterally assigning the plaintiff to work at the airport, the employer purported to impose a probation condition upon his employment in January 2019, based upon the fact that he was in a new position. The employer concocted a memorandum falsely stating that the plaintiff stated he would voluntarily resign if his performance did not improve. While the plaintiff was continuing to make sincere efforts to live up to the employer’s unreasonable demands, it terminated his employment. It did so before providing the additional training and further testing it had promised. The plaintiff was an exceptionally vulnerable employee, as the employer must have understood. He was 68 years of age, with limited work opportunities. He accepted humiliating demotions, a substantial loss of pay, and endured multiple episodes of insulting and unfair discipline, in a desperate effort to retain any job with CSA. The plaintiff was made to suffer pointlessly, since CSA wanted to terminate his employment all along. In its termination letter, the employer alleged dishonesty, by falsely stating that the employee was guilty of “time theft”. CSA refused to provide the plaintiff with a record of employment (“ROE”), contrary to its legal obligations as an employer and despite numerous requests. The failure to provide the plaintiff with a ROE delayed access to employment insurance by about two-and-a-half months. The employer made numerous, very serious, and false allegations in the RTCC, a publicly available document. The allegations included dishonesty, fraud, theft, conspiracy, sexual harassment, and profound denigration and disparagement of the plaintiff’s work record. These false, insulting allegations constituted a wholesale attack on the plaintiff’s conduct, his character, his years of service, his value as an employee, and his worth as a person. They would have been predictably harmful to the plaintiff.
|
$50,000 | $100,000 |
| Osmani v Universal
OSC December 2022 |
Plff was punched in the testicles by his manager resulting in surgical removal.
USRL engaged in a series of acts that poisoned the workplace and undermined the employee/employer relationship. These acts include: failing to respond to Mr. Osmani’s repeated complaints about Mr. De-Almeida’s conduct, which USRL knew involved a strike to the testicles as well as verbal abuse; failing to conduct any investigation into and/or discipline of Mr. De-Almeida, failing to separate Mr. Osmani and Mr. De-Almeida for anything more than a short “happenstance” period of time. b. In addition, when Mr. Osmani fell from the ladder and was injured, USRL crafted a false narrative that sought to place blame on Mr. Osmani for the workplace accident. It also dissuaded him from pursuing a WSIB claim and used Mr. De-Almeida as its intermediary to accomplish this end. c. Once Mr. Osmani returned to work, he was eventually placed back with Mr. De-Almeida. He was also made to perform duties outside his capabilities and had his WSIB claim prematurely terminated resulting in the loss of his wage top-up.
Human rights: Ethnic slurs such as “dumb/fucking Albanian” and “dumb/fucking Italian”; b. Immigration status related comments suggesting that Mr. Osmani would be placed on the “next plane” back to Albania unless he followed instructions and comments suggesting that for two years (the length of the work permit), Mr. De-Almeida had Mr. Osmani’s “balls” in his hands; c. Referring to Mr. Osmani as “a bitch” or “his bitch”; d. Offers to “help” Mr. Osmani with his wife’s sexual needs as a result of the trauma to the testicles; and, e. Various “pranks” involving Mr. Osmani’s testicles which occurred after Mr. Osmani was struck forcefully in the testicles by Mr. De-Almeida. Failure to investigate created a poisoned work environment
|
$100,000 Assault
$10,000 battery $75,000 on dismissal Human rights violations $50,000 |
$25,000 against personal def |
| Rutledge v Markhaven
OSC November 2022 |
The manner of the investigation was not by “an independent third party” as plff was advised in writing. The investigation commenced earlier culminating with a capture of her emails after months of being aware of an allegation Laura Rutledge was responsible for Arjun Sathyaseelan’s selection as Food Services Manager on the basis of a romantic relationship and contrary to her responsibility to put the best interests of her employer first.
Plff gave evidence of attending her examination for discovery and observing photographs of her home with comment by defence counsel of a pending motion for security for costs (which was never brought).
|
$50,000 | |
| Pohl v Hudson’s Bay
OSC Sept 2022 |
Details in reasons for exceptional awards are found here.
Aggravated: (1) Employer’s decision to walk Mr. Pohl out the door was unduly insensitive. (2) The offer of a sales associate job was misleading and a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. (3)Employer violated the ESA by not paying out the wages it owed to Mr. Pohl in a lump sum within the required period of time, including ESA termination payments. (4) Employer failed to issue record of employment (“ROE”) to Mr. Pohl within five days after the interruption of his employment, which occurred seven days after his termination. Punitive: Employer failed to pay wages in a lump sum within seven days of termination and failed to provide him with a timely or accurate record of employment. |
$45,000 | $10,000 |
| Humphrey v Mene motion; upheld by OCA July 2022 | COO plff requested raise, which was followed by suspension notice; plff found about suspension from a vendor; memo to employees advising plff was suspended pending investigation; allegations of just cause maintained until one day prior to hearing date; malevolent litigation tactics | $50,000 | $25,000 |
| Etedali v Disi-Peri Mgmt
OSC April 2022
|
Allegations to support punitive damage award:
Requiring Etedali to take a work-related medical stress leave unpaid; Issuing a notice to remove Etedali from the Board of Directors with no explanation and delivered on the same day as his return from his stress leave; Requiring the two day look ahead report the day following Etedali’s removal as a director; Failing to attempt to discuss with Etedali the source of the work stress; After terminating Etedali without cause, threatening to assert cause and “got to war” if he did not accept DPI’s offer with knowledge of his precarious financial position; Unreasonably asserting cause after the offer was rejected, and failing to pay the shareholder loan (which was due and owing irrespective of the reason for termination) for approximately 11 months; Taking advantage of Etedali’s precarious financial position by withholding his shareholder loan to gain an unfair advantage in this litigation.
|
$75,000 | |
| C.D. v Mostowy
B.C. S.C. October 2021
|
[C.D.] was 44 years of age and was employed by Mr. Mostowy from November 23, 2010 to December 9, 2010. Using sexualized conversations, he used massages to gradually expose and touch her breasts, despite her protestations. Eventually, he exposed his penis and began masturbating in front of her and then placed his penis in her hand. He used her breasts to masturbate himself to ejaculation. This was repeated the following day, with a brief period of fellatio. The victim became emotionally upset by this conduct and suffered stress-induced migraine headaches for which she was prescribed a narcotic | Damages for assault $157,500 | |
| McGraw v Southgate
OSC Oct 2021 |
The defendants acted on unfounded, sexist allegations relating primarily to conduct from years prior, without properly ascertaining the truth and without even asking Ms. McGraw about the allegations. Mr. Milliner conducted an amateurish investigation. He conflated gossip with facts. Without justification, he accepted the allegations and assumed the worst of the fire department’s only two paid staff. He failed to recognize the patent gender-based discrimination directed at Ms. McGraw.
The allegations were fantastical. They were made in a male-dominated environment. The defendants ought to have been highly suspicious that the allegations were based on discrimination. The failure of the defendants to support Ms. McGraw against discrimination was a significant, distressing failure. Plff was one of the female instructors at the fire college, she was unjustly accused of giving grades for sex. Mr. Milliner, the investigator, misunderstood or misremembered the story told to him by Mr. Sherson, and incorrectly attributed the blame to Ms. McGraw.
|
$75,000
$35,000 Human Rights award $20,000 defamation |
$60,000 |
| Alberta Computers.com Inc v Thibert
Alb CA June 2021
|
Aggravated damage award was not appealed
Defamatory words: Dear Customer, As of September 2, 2009 Troy Thibert is no longer employed with Alberta Computers. We regret Troy Thibert’s decision to leave, but wish him well in any future endeavors. It has, however, come to our attention that he has approached many of our clientele, which is a breach of fiduciary trust and as such our lawyers are issuing him a cease and desist letter. We are sending you this letter to inform you that Troy is legally obligated under common law to cease all services and solicitation with you as a client. Employer made comments about Mr. Thibert’s inability to sell in front of the others in the meeting. He also said he had been trying to fire Mr. Thibert for two months. Two persons present had no involvement in supervising Mr. Thibert. Mr. Thibert testified that he was devastated. |
$10,000;
$60,000 for defamation |
|
| Chen v MagIndustries
OSC 2021 |
Employer agreed plff was owed a payment of more than $500,000. It failed to pay even the minimum statutory sum. | $20,000 | |
| Hrynkiw v Central City Brewers & Distillers
BCSC Oct 2020
|
Allegation made that the plff, the Chief Financial Officer, stole his personnel file. This was found to be based on pure speculation without any supporting evidence. | $35,000 | |
| Headley v City of Toronto
August 2019 |
Unfounded allegations of theft; refusal to reply to requests for a reference letter;
Flawed investigation Finding made that the allegations made it more difficult for the plaintiff to find comparable employment |
$15,000
$50,000 for compensation in difficulty to find alternate employment Wallace part 2 |
|
| Bassanese v. German Canadian News
Feb 2019
|
The employer ignored her complaint and neglected to investigate the complaint or take steps to address inappropriate conduct.
Note: The case was not defended |
$50,000 | |
| Colistro v. Tbaytel; upheld by OCA March 2019; leave to appeal dismissed
|
Employer chose to proceed with the hiring of an individual whom it knew had previously sexually harassed the plff. This was a blatant disregard for her interests. | $100,000 | |
| Ruston v Keddco
OCA Feb 2019 |
Employer threatened plff not to make a claim and by instituting the counter-claim was calculated to, and did, cause the plff stress. Counterclaim alleged fraud and claimed $1.7 million which was reduced to $1 after seven days of trial. C-C was a tactic to intimidate.
Manner of dismissal was devastating and had caused the plff stress. |
$25,000 | $100,000 |
| Zando v Ali
August 2018 OCA April 2017 |
Physician raped by colleague | $175,000 for assault | $25,000 |
| Bailey v Service Corporation
BCSC Feb 2018
|
Plff terminated when known to be ill and seeking medical care, in need for employer’s sick plan;
Employer failed to allow plff chance to respond to unfair assumption he had abandoned his employment; it also failed to advise plff of termination, which his wife discovered by the denial of medical benefits; Employer falsely alleged cause for dismissal; Defence accused plff of dishonesty. Evidence of mental distress difficult due to pre-existing conditions; para 211 To consider the issue of whether the ordered punitive award was disproportionate, the trial judge looked to the sums awarded of aggravated, punitive and the severance sum in the enforced contract, compared to the extent of expected common law notice of 18 to 24 months, even though the court found the employment contract limiting the severance to be enforceable; para 226 This is an unique approach. There was no appeal.
|
$25,000 | $110,000 |
| Horner v. 897469
OSC January 2018
|
The employer’s conduct was malicious, oppressive and high-handed. Instead of investigation of the bullying, the plff was terminated.
Note: case was undefended |
$20,000 | $10,000 |
| Galea v Wal-Mart
OSC December 2017 |
Pre-termination, plff was made to suffer repeated humiliation, starting with the announcement of her re-assignment from Vice President, General Merchandising to that of a roving vice president of little substance. There was no opportunity provided within Wal-Mart Canada for her, and she received no offers from any Wal-Mart Company in India, Brazil, Chile or the U.K.
Employer made representations to Ms. Galea that amounted to extending a good faith promise it never kept. Litigation conduct and trial tactics also influential. |
$250,000 | $500,000 |
| Lalonde v Sena Solid Waste
Alberta QB June 2017
|
Defendant had made up his mind to dismiss the Plaintiff within days of his suspension, therefore supporting the conclusion that the investigation was at best incompetent and unfair and at worst a sham. The Defendant clearly ignored or failed to give proper weight to information it received from another employee. | $75,000 | |
| Park v 101143482 Saskatchewan
Sask Q.B. May 2017 |
Faced with the plaintiffs’ claim and Mr. Park’s threats to publish the story of Mr. Shin’s conduct, employer alleged incompetence, dishonesty, and serious insubordination, including death threats. Mr. Shin reported that fabricated story to the police. He directed three men employed by another of his companies to attempt to intimidate the plaintiffs, resulting in the terrifying invasion of the Parks’ residence. | $12,500 to each of two plaintiffs | |
| Doyle v Zochem
OCA Feb 2017 |
Cursory investigation of sexual harassment complaint allowed for aggravated damages. Short term disability application wrongfully denied. The company requested employees to “dig up dirt” on plff.
Employer assured Doyle that her job was not in jeopardy when in fact the decision to terminate had already been made and the termination letter was probably already in the making. Termination due to gender and sexual harassment complaint.
|
$60,000 plus $20,000 as human rights compensatory award | |
| Strudwick v. Applied Consumer & Clinical Evaluations
OCA 2016
|
Refusal to accommodate plff’s disability which was deafness. It then took steps to exacerbate the impact of her deafness on her ability to perform her job to force her to resign. When that did not work, the company fired her for a frivolous and particularly offensive reason and in a manner intended to cause maximum embarrassment.
Paperwork had been prepared by the company that was designed to deprive her of various legal rights. When she would not sign, she was not given money the company then owed her. She was further humiliated by having to gather her belongings and leave under the stares of co-workers. The abuse did not cease after termination. Government intervention was needed before Applied Consumer gave Ms. Strudwick the pay it owed her at the time of dismissal. Then the company tendered a record of employment that delayed Ms. Strudwick’s entitlement to receive employment insurance. This conduct resulted in lasting psychological harm to Ms. Strudwick. As previously noted, she was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood requiring prolonged weekly cognitive behavioural therapy. |
OCA increased award for human rights violation from $20,000 to $40,000;
$70,000 in aggravated damages. The trial judge made no award of aggravated damages in view of the tort claim and the human rights award. |
$55,000, which revised the trial award of $15,000 |
| Price v. 481530 B.C. Ltd
B.C.S.C 2016
|
Plff suffering from cancer and suffering from stress. Employer made allegations of many dishonest acts, including theft; Loss of future employment could result from these allegations; | $50,000
$100,000 in damages for tort of conspiracy to injure |
|
| Morison v Ergo-Industrial Seating
Oct 2016 OSC
|
Plff was terminated by a quick telephone call followed by a letter that alluded to the possibility of cause.
Allegations of cause initially pleaded and the lack of a reasonable belief on the part of the defendant to support the allegations of cause; the lack of any warning and of any investigation; the lack of reasons provided by the employer at the time of dismissal; the two months’ delay by the defendant in providing the plaintiff with his record of employment; delay in paying ESA sum; |
$50,000 | |
| Pepin v. Telecommunications Workers Union
B.C.S.C. May 2016 |
Employer’s ‘take it or leave it’ demand that she defer any wage increase to 2016 was strategically chosen to frustrate the Contract and the plaintiff.
Employer conduct of negotiations with the plaintiff was characterized by delay, by a lack of good faith and with little sensitivity for her and warrants an award of punitive damages. |
$25,000 | |
| Karmel v Calgary Jewish Academy
Alb QB Nov 2015 |
Employer was unreasonable in recommending the termination; it also acted in bad faith for much of the time leading up to the termination.
The tight-knit nature of the Calgary Jewish community meant that the issues faced by Mr. Karmel in his role as Principal of the CJA were especially significant. While some professionals distinguish between their work and personal lives, Mr. Karmel’s were one in the same. His future at the CJA was therefore bound up with his role and reputation in his community. |
$200,000 | |
| Lau v RBC
B.C.S.C. Sept 2015;
|
The company conducted a flawed investigation as it did not interview the complaining customer. It also failed to retain the relevant video tape and other evidence and hence prevented the plaintiff from making a proper response to the allegations made against him.
Plff was never given the client’s statement, bank records and the confession obtained from a colleague. From the outset the court found that the Bank believed the client and that Lau was a liar. This decision on the aggravated damages question was set aside by the B.C. Court of Appeal which, while agreeing medical evidence is not a mandatory prerequisite, nonetheless saw no evidence to support this award. |
($30,000) | |
| K.T. v Vranich
OSC 2011 |
Sexual assault, intentional infliction of mental suffering; breach of fiduciary duty; Occupier’s Liability Act; Breach of obligation of good faith and fair dealing at the time of dismissalaction was undefended |
$125,000 general damages | $25,000 |
| Partridge v Botony Dental
Jan 2015 |
Plff terminated due to child care issues, adverse treatment found due to family status and reprisal under ESA | $20,000 human rights violations | |
| Bray v Canadian College of Massage and Hydrotherapy,
Winny, J. OSC, Small Claims Division Jan 2015
|
The case involved a successful plea of constructive dismissal. The evidence at trial showed that the employer’s conduct was motivated by a complaint made by a former student. This complaint had not been investigated, and the plaintiff had not been afforded an opportunity to provide her side of the story. The complaint contained an allegation of dishonesty against the plaintiff.
A second complaint from an instructor accusing the plaintiff of speaking ill of this person was similarly not provided to the plaintiff for her response.
|
Bhasin duty violated $5,000 punitive | |
| Boucher v Wal-Mart
OCA May 2014 |
Unfair investigation
Jury at trial had ordered $1 million in punitive damages which was reduced on appeal to $100,000, against Wal-Mart. It also awarded damages of $250,000 against the manager, Pinnock, made up of $100,000 for intentional infliction of mental suffering, and $150,000 in punitive damages (awards for which Wal-Mart is vicariously liable as Pinnock’s employer). The punitive award against the manager was reduced on appeal to $10,000. Pinnock’s conduct was flagrant and outrageous. He belittled, humiliated and demeaned Boucher continuously and unrelentingly, often in front of co-workers, for nearly six months. The tort award remained in place.
|
$200,000 plus $100,000 for tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering against the manager | $100,000 against employer and $10,000 against manager |
| City of Calgary v CUPE
Alberta arbitrator December 2013 |
Unfair investigation which enhanced plff’s suffering due to lack of action;
Arbitrator was allowed to use common law, human rights and arbitral remedies on consent of the parties |
$125,000 | |
| Pate v Galway
OCA November 2013 |
Unfair investigation; employer hid exculpatory documents; criminal charges; small town; severe personal suffering. | $75,000 | $450,000 |
| Higginson v Babine Forest Products
BC SC 2012 Not reported Jury trial |
Plff employed for 34 years;
Plff showed that the company management had deliberately attempted to create an unpleasant work environment at the sawmill in the hope that he would decide to leave on his own. When he didn’t quit the company created false grounds to dismiss him for cause in order to avoid paying severance. Case was appealed and settled before the hearing.
|
$573,000 | |
| Tl’azt’en First Nation v. Joseph
July 2013 Federal Court review of Unjust Dismissal arbitration under Canada Labour Code
|
The employer made numerous allegations towards the respondent, which it maintained at the hearing before the adjudicator. The adjudicator found that all the allegations were unfounded and that both the respondent’s reputation in his community and his professional standing among government agencies were predictably destroyed when a number of the allegations were widely distributed publicly.
Joseph was humiliated at his workplace when the Executive Director purported to make a workplace rule that no employee of the applicant was allowed to speak with the complainant while he was on medical leave, even on their own personal time away from work. The adjudicator found that the applicant’s conduct was reprehensible, dishonest, malicious, deliberate, despicable, deceitful and in bad faith. The adjudicator properly looked at several dimensions of the case, including the blameworthiness of the applicant’s conduct, the vulnerability of the respondent – for example, that he was on medical leave while the Executive Director continued his “vicious campaign of intimidation” – and the deliberate harm directed specifically at the respondent. |
$85,000 | $100,000 |
| Middleton v. Municipality of Highlands East
2013 The full text is not on Canlii. The link is to the costs decision. April 2013 on costs Decision is referenced in Strudwick.
|
No procedural fairness (being terminated without investigation into the concerns prompting the termination and without being advised of the concerns), was not paid his statutory minimums, was not provided with a letter of recommendation, and had a record of employment stating he did not meet the expectations of his position. He suffered embarrassment, damage to his self-worth and self-esteem, interference with his sleep and strains in his relationships with others. | $30,000 | |
| MB v Deluxe Windows
OCA March 2012 |
Sexual assault;
Serious psychological injuries |
$300,000 assault
$25,000 |
|
| Vernon v B.C.
B.C.S.C. January 2012
|
Improper selection of investigator as this person had been previously the plaintiff’s labour relations advisor and was the person to whom Mrs. Vernon confided previously on other matters and on these issues.
The process was biased as the investigator proceeded to assemble a list of witnesses who she knew would have negative views of the plaintiff; The plaintiff was at this initial meeting given a letter containing eight complaints and asked for her immediate response, without the chance to prepare. Witnesses who supported the plaintiff were accused of lying. Court saw flawed investigation as being not within Wallace time constraints. Other events were at the time of termination.
|
$35,000 | $50,000 |
| Corfield v Shaw
BC SC Oct 2011 |
Plff was sexually assaulted nine times;
Damages for assault and future income loss and publicity of wrongdoing were sufficient to deny punitive damages;\ Presumed lack of financial resources |
$60,000 assault and future income loss $22,500 | nil |
| Elgert v Home Hardware
Alb CA April 2011
|
Unfair investigation of sexual harassment allegations;
Trial award of $300,000 aggravated reversed on appeal and $200,000 punitive reduced to $75,000. |
$60,000 damages in defamation against personal defendants | $75,000 |
| Zesta v Cloutier re counterclaim of Durante
OSC 2010; supp reasons Rev’d in part on unrelated grounds OCA October 2014 |
Durante was subjected to a series of intimidating interrogations by Bernard Eastman, employer counsel, who on several occasions essentially threatened Durante’s livelihood.
Durante was dismissed for telling the truth or, to put in another way, for choosing the wrong side in a vicious dispute rooted in family issues. No severance (not even his Employment Standards Act minimums) and his benefits were immediately discontinued. Zesat pursued an extended, cavalier and single-minded approach in fighting Durante’s employment insurance application for two years, and then failed to attend the ultimate hearing. Zesta commenced a companion action for fraudulent conveyance against Durante and his wife, many years after having knowledge of the conveyance, and maintained it despite the reconveyance to Durante of his interest in the matrimonial home. This was a source of additional stress, worry and expense for both him and his wife. This was done, notwithstanding Durante had been a highly loyal career employee with an otherwise unblemished work record, who had been treated and considered as an extended family member, while fully aware of the significant impact such conduct would have on Durante and his family.
|
$75,000 | |
| Rubin v Ross
Sask CA March 2013 leave to appeal dismissed |
Ms. Bowman had won an initial grievance based on sexual harassment by which she was reinstated. Dr. Rubin had been supportive of her in this process and was at no time accused of wrongdoing.
Due to certain issues on her return to work, a second grievance was filed. It was this grievance which led subsequently to the civil action brought by Dr. Rubin and the defence of privilege. The grievance filed by the union incorrectly asserted that Dr. Rubin had been found responsible for the harassment of Ms. Bowman. The union submitted in the same grievance that it had previously requested his termination. The Court of Appeal found that on this issue, the union had exceeded its mandate. |
Defamation ($25,000)
Sask CA set at $100,000 |
|
| Kelly v Norsemont Mining
B.C. S.C. January 2013 |
Employer refused to pay final month’s salary, insisting on a general release; this was acknowledged to be owing, yet withheld for seven years;
Secondly, employer tried to wrestle Mr. Kelly’s personal laptop away from him on the evening of the termination. In the weeks immediately following his termination, Norsemont refused to return personal items to Mr. Kelly, including a signed photograph, yet demanded he return a Starbucks coffee card the company had issued to him. Thirdly, company threatened to bankrupt Mr. Kelly and to put KRTT out of business. |
$100,000 | |
| MacDonald-Ross v. Connect North America
NB QB July 2010 |
Employer concocted cause after-the-fact based on unfounded allegations of misappropriation of funds and knowingly communicating these unfounded allegations to the police is reprehensible and egregious. | $50,000 | |
| Review of arbitrator’s award upheld
Pagliaroli v. Rite-Pak Produce OSC June 2010 |
Allegations of ‘dishonest activities’ at company Christmas party and on other occasions
“Mr. Pagliaroli, his wife and son each testified as to Mr. Pagliaroli’s manner, demeanor and attitude following November, 2007. No medical evidence was adduced…I am satisfied on the evidence…that Mr. Pagliaroli suffered by reason of the speech in a manner beyond that caused merely by the constructive dismissal.” [ |
$25,000 | |
| Chapell v Canadian Pacific
Alb QB 2010 |
The Court found that the dismissal went beyond just ‘normal hurt feelings’ and it was unduly insensitive and unfair. The employer had a security officer stationed outside the door and others were able to observe him being escorted out.
|
$20,000 | |
| Piresferreira v. Ayotte trial Dec 2008 and May 2010 on appeal, leave to appeal dismissed | At trial plff recovered on the tort of negligent infliction of mental distress, assault and battery and constructive dismissal.
Trial judge offset aggravated award from the composite tort awards, each being $45,000. Trial awarded $450,000 as past and future loss income award. |
OCA allowed $45,000 as aggravated and $15,000 for assault and set aside lost income award; tort claims were denied. | |
| Simmons v Webb
OSC Dec 2008 |
The Plaintiff was dismissed by simply being handed a letter informing him of the dismissal and telling him to pack his things, and the employer refused to return a personal item which had sentimental value to the Plaintiff.
|
$20,000 | |
| Peoples v Ontario
OSC Dec 2008 |
Employer did investigation of allegations made by staff which were critical of plff’s management style; Employer failed to review the result with plff and allow her to respond;
Employer also should have proved training to allow plff to improve her skills and allow for progressive discipline. The decision was post Honda yet moral damages led to increase of 4 further 4 months’ notice |
Incremental award of 4 months | |
| Trial decision March 2005;
OCA June 2006 ; SCC June 2008 |
Trial decision found that plff was set up to fail and that employer took retaliatory action due to retention of legal counsel. Trial judge awarded extended notice from 15 to 14 months and punitive damages of $500,000 and full costs;
OCA reduced punitive damages to $100,000 and lowered scale of costs. SCC reversed fact findings which is extremely unusual. SCC explained principle of compensatory damages for emotional harm, which it did not award. Punitive damages eliminated. |
nil | nil |