Employment Law - Nelligan O`Brien Payne

bãéäçóãÉåí=i~ï
[ LEGAL ISSUES OF INTEREST TO EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES ]=
Spring 2010
$500,000 Damage Award
Decreased by Court of Appeal:
Piresferreira v. Ayotte, 2010 ONCA
384
general damages (of $50,000) and loss of
income until age-65 ($500,924) less a 10%
contingency for the possibility she would not
have worked until age-65. The trial judge would
have awarded damages for constructive
dismissal based upon a 12-month notice period
($87,855) and bad faith in the manner of
dismissal ($45,000), but did not do so on the
grounds that they would have duplicated the tort
damages.
The Court of Appeal recently decreased a large
claim won by an employee who was
constructively dismissed and suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder as a result of her
abusive manager. The employee was an account
manager at Bell Mobility in Ottawa. In 2005,
she suffered from increasingly strong verbal
abuse from her manager. Her manager then
struck her in 2005 and, when the employee
pressed for an apology, informed her that he was
filling out a performance improvement plan for
her. While Bell Mobility investigated this
incident and reprimanded her manager, it never
informed the employee of this and collaborated
with her manager in imposing a performance
improvement plan. The employee did not return
to work and eventually claimed constructive
dismissal.
The Court of Appeal overturned the damage
award based upon the tort claims. First, the
Court of Appeal concluded that the tort of
negligent infliction of mental suffering is not
available in the employment context. The Court
of Appeal concluded that there should not be a
duty of care between an employer and employee
with respect to that tort for “policy reasons”: it
would duplicate both the obligation of good faith
and fair dealing and claims for constructive
dismissal and is therefore unnecessary. The
Court of Appeal based its decision in part on its
conclusion that “no Canadian appellate court has
recognized a free standing cause of action in tort
against an employer for negligent infliction of
mental suffering.” The Court of Appeal did not
refer to Sulz v. Minister of Public Safety and
Solicitor General, 2006 BCCA 582 where the
British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld a
The trial judge awarded the employee over
$500,000 in damages. She concluded that Bell
Mobility was liable for the torts of negligent
infliction of mental suffering, intentional
infliction of mental suffering, and battery. She
concluded that the employee could never work
again because of her disability caused by her
manager and Bell Mobility, and awarded both
1
Nelligan O'Brien Payne – Employment Law Newsletter
damage award of over $900,000 based upon
such a tort.1
Spring 2010
Christopher Rootham
613-231-8311
[email protected]
Second, the Court of Appeal concluded that the
trial judge erred in finding Bell Mobility had
committed the intentional tort. That tort has two
elements: (i) flagrant and outrageous conduct
and, (ii) a desire to produce the consequences
that follow or knowledge that the consequences
are substantially certain to follow. The Court of
Appeal concluded that the trial judge erred by
applying a standard of “reckless disregard” to
the second element of the test: the tort requires a
subjective awareness that the harm that resulted
is substantially certain to follow, not an
objective element such as “reckless disregard.”
Bill 168 Primer
On June 15, 2010, significant new changes will
take effect in Ontario’s occupational health and
safety legislation. The changes to the Ontario
Occupational Health and Safety Act require
extensive efforts in the workplace to prevent
both violence and harassment at work.
Workplaces with more than five employees are
now required to develop and maintain
workplace policies to protect employees from
violence and harassment in the workplace. The
policies must be in writing, and posted in a
public, visible location in the workplace. The
employer must review the policies on a
continuing basis, and as often as is necessary to
ensure employees are protected.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge
that the manager committed the tort of battery.
However, the Court of Appeal concluded that
the employee’s disability was not caused by the
battery, but was instead caused by a number of
other events that were not dependent upon the
battery. The Court of Appeal therefore awarded
$15,000 in general damages for the battery.
These employers are then required to develop
and maintain a comprehensive program to
implement the anti-violence and harassment
policies. The program must detail:
(a) Measures to control identified risks that
could expose employees to physical
injury (workplace violence);
(b) Procedures to summon immediate
assistance when workplace violence
occurs or is likely to occur (workplace
violence);
(c) Procedures to report incidents of
workplace violence or harassment;
(d) Procedures for how the employer will
investigate and address incidents or
complaints.
Finally, the Court of Appeal replaced the tort
damages with the damages for constructive
dismissal. The Court of Appeal agreed with the
trial judge that Bell Mobility acted in bad faith,
and that the award of $45,000 for bad faith had
“a solid foundation.” Bell Mobility argued that
the employee did not properly mitigate her
damages: since she was so disabled she was
unable to ever work again, the Court of Appeal
obviously dismissed this argument. Therefore,
the employee ended up with damages for
constructive dismissal of $87,855, damages for
bad faith of $45,000, and damages for battery of
$15,000.
Employers must now undertake a risk
assessment of workplace violence that may
arise given the nature of the workplace, the type
of work or the conditions of work. When
conducting the assessment, employers must
consider circumstances in their own workplace
as well as circumstances that would be common
in other similar workplaces.
The employee’s lawyer has stated that he will be
seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada in this matter.
1
Admittedly, the employer conceded negligence in
the BC Court of Appeal so that court did not address
the issue directly.
2
Nelligan O'Brien Payne – Employment Law Newsletter
Spring 2010
Beaudry n’était pas d’accord avec la conclusion
de l’arbitre Fortier, selon laquelle le défendeur
avait été congédié injustement.
After the risk assessment is completed, the
employer must advise the health and safety
committee or representative of its findings, or
make its findings available to all employees
where there is no committee. Employers must
also make the appropriate changes to the
workplace in accordance with its findings in
order to minimize the risk of workplace
violence. The employer must reassess risks of
workplace violence on a continuing basis and as
often as is necessary to ensure continued
protection of workers from workplace violence.
Dans l’arrêt, Transport St-Lambert c. Fillion2, la
Cour fédérale a renversé, en révision judiciaire,
la décision arbitrale de l’arbitre Fortier qui avait
conclu que la plainte de monsieur Christian
Fillion était bien fondée et que ce dernier avait
été congédié.
Le défendeur, monsieur Christian Fillion,
travaillait pour la demanderesse, Transport StLambert, à titre de chauffeur de camions
remorque depuis 1994. En 2006, lorsqu’il
effectuait un voyage de transport aux Etats-Unis,
il fût témoin d’un accident routier dans lequel
trois personnes sont décédées. N’ayant pas suivi
de cours de secourisme, le défendeur n’était pas
en mesure de porter secours aux victimes. Il fût
donc très affecté par cet accident. En novembre
2006, son médecin le mit en arrêt de travail pour
deux mois en raison du traumatisme causé par
l’accident. Le défendeur retourna au travail en
janvier 2007 mais fût encore une fois mis en
arrêt de travail en avril de la même année.
Additionally, if an employer becomes aware, or
ought to have been aware, that domestic
violence may occur in the workplace, the
employer must take all reasonable precautions to
ensure that the worker is protected. Further, if a
worker can be expected to encounter a person
with a history of violent behaviour that will
likely expose the worker to physical injury, the
employer must advise the employee of that risk.
Workers are also entitled to training and
information on the contents of the anti-violence
and harassment policies and programs. Workers
also have a right to refuse work if they have a
reason to believe they are in danger from
workplace violence. An employee cannot refuse
to work, however, based on an allegation of
workplace harassment.
Le 10 septembre 2007, l’assureur, Great West,
avisa le défendeur que l’évaluation indépendante
à laquelle il s’était soumis, avait révélé qu’il
n’avait aucune limitation. L’assureur l’informa
également qu’il allait mettre fin aux prestations
d’invalidité de longue durée du défendeur
immédiatement. Après des appels et des
demandes de révision présentées par monsieur
Fillion, l’assureur informa les parties, soit
Transport St-Lambert et monsieur Fillion, que la
décision de cesser les prestations était
maintenue. La demanderesse avisa donc le
défendeur qu’il devait se présenter au travail dès
le 2 novembre 2007.
Craig Stehr
613-231-8208
[email protected]
Refuser une offre de réintégration
raisonnable; c’est manquer à son
devoir de mitigation
La Cour fédérale s’est récemment prononcée au
sujet de l’obligation d’un employé de mitiger ses
dommages, et ce, en considérant les offres de
réintégration de l’employeur. Le juge Beaudry
qui a entendu la cause en révision judiciaire a
conclu que l’arbitre avait commis une erreur
révisable en ne reconnaissant pas certains faits
importants en évaluant les efforts du défendeur
de mitiger son préjudice. De plus, le juge
Le défendeur communiqua avec la directrice
générale le 5 novembre lorsqu’il pris
connaissance de la lettre. Elle lui avisa qu’il
devait se présenter au travail le lendemain, sans
2
Transport St-Lambert c. Fillion [2010] A.C.F. no
84
3
Nelligan O'Brien Payne – Employment Law Newsletter
Spring 2010
contrôle judiciaire applicable. Le juge Beaudry
reconnu que la norme de la raisonabilité devait
être appliquée et que la Cour devait « faire
preuve de déférence envers les conclusions de
l’arbitre et ne devra intervenir que si la décision
ne fait pas partie des « issues possibles
acceptables pouvant se justifier au regard des
faits et du droit. » (Dunsmuir, au paragraphe
47) ».
quoi il perdrait son poste. Puisque le défendeur
ne s’est pas présenté, la demanderesse lui
envoya une lettre l’avisant qu’elle considérait
qu’il avait abandonné son poste. En réponse à
ceci, le défendeur déposa une plainte de
congédiement injustifié.
Le défendeur déposa aussi un nouveau rapport
médical auprès de l’assureur. Ce dernier en avisa
la demanderesse que le 30 novembre 2007.
La Cour s’attaque ensuite aux refus des offres de
réintégration faites par la demanderesse à la
suite du congédiement du défendeur en
novembre 2007. En reprenant les concepts de la
décision Evans c. Teamsters Local Union No. 31
2008 CSC 20, le juge Beaudry explique que
l’arbitre avait un « devoir de considérer,
analyser et déterminer la raisonnabilité du refus
du défendeur des offres de réintégration de la
demanderesse. » Il détermine ensuite que
l’arbitre n’a pas satisfait ce devoir et que sa
décision est donc déraisonnable. La Cour
poursuit en disant qu’il « est évident selon la
Cour que le défendeur en refusant les offres de
la demanderesse et en ne se présentant pas au
travail à la fin de son invalidité, a de lui-même
décidé de rompre le lien d’emploi et a
démissionné. »
La demanderesse offre au défendeur de le
réintégrer dans son poste avec les mêmes
conditions de travail dès la fin de sa nouvelle
période d’invalidité. Le défendeur refusa l’offre
en citant des relations de travail difficiles. La
demanderesse lui offre donc un poste identique
au sein de l’une de ses filiales. Encore une fois,
le défendeur refusa l’offre.
Le défendeur reçoit des prestations d’invalidité
longue durée jusqu’au 3 mars 2008 en raison de
son nouveau rapport médical. Le 6 mars 2008, il
est déclaré apte à retourner au travail. Par contre,
il ne retourne jamais à son poste au sein de la
demanderesse.
La plainte de congédiement injustifié se rend en
arbitrage en février 2009. L’arbitre conclut que
la plainte est bien fondée et que le défendeur a
été congédié. Il explique dans sa décision que le
défendeur n’avait pas à se présenter au travail en
novembre 2007 puisqu’il était encore inapte
selon son médecin traitant. De plus, pour cette
même raison, il ne devait pas accepter l’offre de
réintégration faite en janvier 2008. L’arbitre
ajoute que la demanderesse se devait de
réintégrer le défendeur dès la fin de son
invalidité en mars 2008. Il ordonne donc la
réintégration du défendeur et ordonne à la
demanderesse de payer au défendeur « toutes les
sommes dont il a pu être privé suite à son
congédiement » et les honoraires de son
procureurs reliés à sa plainte de congédiement
injustifié.
D’autant plus, la Cour poursuit son analyse en
discutant le devoir d’un employé de mitiger ses
dommages. Le juge Beaudry conclut que « dans
le cadre d’un redressement accordé en vertu du
paragraphe 242(2) du Code, l’existence d’une
offre de réintégration est une preuve pertinente
dans l’examen de l’obligation de mitiger les
dommages et l’arbitre devrait examiner la
raisonnabilité de l’offre. »
La Cour fédérale conclut sa décision en
reconnaissant qu’un arbitre peut accorder des
honoraires sur la base procureur-client mais que
ceci est seulement justifié dans des circonstances
exceptionnelles et où la partie demandant cette
réparation est en mesure de prouver la conduite
répréhensible de la partie adverse. La Cour
rejette la conclusion de l’arbitre selon laquelle le
comportement de la demanderesse était abusif
et/ou de mauvaise foi.
La Cour fédérale débuta donc son analyse de la
décision en révision judiciaire en répétant
l’exercice de la détermination de la norme de
4
Nelligan O'Brien Payne – Employment Law Newsletter
Spring 2010
an appropriate section head or group leader
position.
Il en ressort donc de cette décision de la Cour
fédérale qu’un arbitre doit réviser tous les efforts
faits par un employé de mitiger ses dommages à
la suite d’un congédiement. Une offre de
réintégration raisonnable refusée sans motifs
valables sera considérée comme un manquement
au devoir de mitigation de l’employé.
However, Dr. Grover’s human rights woes
continued. Remedial issues flowing from the
Tribunal’s 1992 decision were twice referred to
Federal Court proceedings, both times resolving
in Dr. Grover’s favour. In the meantime, the
Tribunal also ruled that the NRC’s proposal to
appoint Dr. Grover to a “group head” position
was “totally inappropriate when considered
against the background of Dr. Grover’s
expertise”.
Christine Poirier
613-231-8227
[email protected]
Justice Delayed is Indeed Justice
Denied: Grover v. Canada
(Attorney General), 2010 FC 320
In March 1994, the last of Dr. Grover’s three
additional complaints was submitted to the
Human Rights Commission. He also initiated a
complaint to the Public Service Staff Relations
Board, as well as a civil lawsuit.
In upholding a decision of the Canadian Human
Rights Tribunal to dismiss a human rights
complaint, without a full hearing, the Federal
Court has ended one of the most protracted
human rights disputes in Canadian legal history.
The Commission attempted to dismiss Dr.
Grover’s second and third human rights
complaints but, on judicial review, the Federal
Court remitted these complaints back to the
Commission. A new Commission investigation
report recommended referral of all three
remaining complaints to a Tribunal hearing.
This time, the NRC successfully challenged the
Commission’s recommendation in Federal
Court, and the matter was remitted back to the
Commission again for re-investigation.
In 1987, scientist Chander Grover filed the first
of four human rights complaints against his
employer, the National Research Council
(NRC). Dr. Grover alleged discrimination on
the basis of race, colour, and national or ethnic
origin.
In 1992, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
concluded, following a hearing of this first
complaint, that the NRC management had
embarked on a course of discrimination against
Dr. Grover that was calculated to impede his
promotion progression, diminish his status and
international reputation as a scientist, and cause
him both stress and humiliation. In its decision,
the Tribunal described the NRC’s conduct as
“manipulative”, “callous”, “flagrant” and
“calculated to humiliate and demean Dr.
Grover”, and found that senior management had
continued to discriminate against Dr. Grover
throughout the human rights proceeding. The
NRC was ordered by the Tribunal to provide Dr.
Grover with a written apology, desist from
discriminatory practices, pay damages for hurt
feelings, compensate Dr. Grover for denied
salary progression, and to appoint Dr. Grover to
In 2007, the Commission referred portions of the
complaints to the Tribunal, a decision that
prompted several pre-hearing motions to the
Tribunal and yet another judicial review
application to the Federal Court by the NRC.
In January 2009, the Tribunal dismissed all three
complaints for administrative delay, concluding
that the NRC would suffer significant prejudice
and was unable to properly defend itself because
witnesses had suffered memory loss, had died,
or were unavailable, or because evidence had
been lost in the 15 years since these proceedings
had commenced. The Tribunal concluded that
conducting a hearing under the circumstances
would be unfair and in breach of natural justice.
5
Nelligan O'Brien Payne – Employment Law Newsletter
The Federal Court agreed, confirming that when
prejudice to a party due to delay is of a sufficient
magnitude to impact on the fairness of a hearing,
there is no need to assess the causes of the delay
even if the reasons for delay included the NRC’s
repeated engagement in the judicial review
process and settlement discussions.
Spring 2010
Employment Law is not intended to provide
legal advice or opinion as neither can be given
without reference to specific events and
situations.
Questions and comments concerning materials in
this newsletter are welcomed.
Christopher Rootham, Editor,
[email protected].
Moreover, in determining that there was no duty
to preserve testimonial evidence, the Federal
Court was not persuaded by Dr. Grover’s
proposition that NRC had a duty to refresh the
recollections of witnesses on an ongoing and
regular basis to ensure that no memory loss
occurred up to the time of a hearing.
Copies of this newsletter and other newsletters
are also posted on our Web site at
www.nelligan.ca.
© Copyright 2010 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
Is justice delayed justice denied?
Unequivocally, yes, if you are Chander Grover.
Nelligan O’Brien Payne is a multi-service
law firm with offices in Ottawa, Kingston,
Vankleek Hill and Alexandria. Our legal
expertise includes the following key areas:
Denise Workun
613-231-8229
[email protected]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Our Employment Law Practice Group
Janice Payne
Dougald Brown
Steve Waller
Sean McGee
Denise Workun
Ainslie Benedict
Robert Monti
Christopher Rootham
Mark Seebaran
Steven Levitt
Julie Skinner
Ella Forbes-Chilibeck
Craig Stehr
Christine Poirier
6
Business Law
Class Actions
Condominium Law
Employment Law
Estate Planning and Administration
Family Law
Insurance Defence
Intellectual Property
Labour Law
Litigation
Municipal Law
Personal Injury and Wrongful Death
Public Law
Real Estate and Development