The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Damages for bad faith in dismissal: an update

by David Doorey April 20, 2009
written by David Doorey April 20, 2009

In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled in Wallace v. UGG that the period of reasonable notice required to terminate an employee can be ‘extended’ when the employer engages in ‘bad faith in the manner of dismissal’.  What that meant took some time to sort out.  But in the years since, it became fairly common for courts to add several months’ worth of pay to wrongful dismissal awards when the court ruled that the employer was insensitive and harsh in the way it dismissed an employee.  There was no need for the employee to actually prove she suffered extra financial harm as a result of the bad treatment:  courts would just add on additional notice time to the amount of notice they otherwise would have ordered.  These awards became known as “Wallace Damages”.
The range of employer conduct that would lead to Wallace Damages grew, and includes:
*  verbal abuse of the employee, or making false allegations of incompetence or cause for dismissal
*  failing to conduct a competent investigation of alleged wrongdoing by the employee
*  failing to give the employee an opportunity to give her side of the story when alleged wrongdoing is involved
*  using hardball tactics, like pressuring employee to sign a legal release without legal advise
This is a very short part of a long list of employer conduct that judges have punished.   More recently, SCC revisited Wallace in case a Honda Canada v. Keays.   That was an interesting case for a number of reasons. But for our talk here, it is noteworthy that the court ruled that damages for bad faith in the manner of dismissal could no longer be awarded by simply extending the notice period.  Instead, the employee had to prove she suffered actual damages, and if she did, she is entitled to the total amount of those damages.  So the employee must now prove harm.
So the moral for HR Managers is that you need to be kind and professional in the manner in which you dismiss employees.  Courts want employers to respect the fact that this is a traumatic event for the employee. Think biblical:  treat the employee like you would want to be treated.

1 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
Is a layoff a breach of contract?
next post
The Emerging Implied Duty of Decency

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

TheLawofWork Follow

@ ·
now

Reply on Twitter Retweet on Twitter Like on Twitter Twitter
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • Constructive Dismissal
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • New Zealand
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.