Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Piresferreira v. Bell Mobility: I'm Confused, Please Help!

by David Doorey June 9, 2010
written by David Doorey June 9, 2010

The Ontario Court of Appeal issued a landmark employment law decision a couple of weeks ago called Piresferreira v. Ayotte.
The case is being discussed mostly for the Court’s ruling that the tort of negligent infliction of mental suffering does not apply to the employment relationship. That is another example of the courts’ “special” treatment of the employment relationship.  The Court ruled that while the elements of the tort had been satisfied in the case, there were “policy” reasons why employers should not have to answer to this tort.
Other bloggers have explained the facts and rulings in great detail (like The Court and Thoughts from a Management Lawyer), so I will skip a long recounting of the facts and the court’s ruling.   See those fine sites for detailed explanations of the case.
I’ll let others talk about the tort issue.  I will focus on  a different question:

What happened to the breach of contract?

Here are the findings as I read them and as found by the trial judge and accepted by the Court of Appeal.

  • The employee was verbally and physically abused by her manager.
  • Bell’s Code of Conduct (see p. 22) included a requirement for the employer to maintain a workplace free of verbal and physical harassment and threats, and that requirement was an incorporated term of the employment contract (see CA decision, para. 47)
  • That contract term was breached by the employer.
  • Due to the breach of contract, the employee suffered physical and psychological harm that effectively prevented her from working, thereby causing lost wages.
  • Those damages were reasonably foreseeable (see para. 54).

So why isn’t the employee entitled to damages for breach of the contract term? This seems like a pretty straightforward contract law issue.  But the Court never even addresses that question because it focuses exclusively on the tort arguments.  The contract term is only referred to as part of the discussion of why a duty of care existed for the purpose of the tort analysis–the Court rules that a breach of contract cannot be the basis for the recognition of a tort (para. 47), but is relevant to deciding if a duty of care existed (para. 51).
The question remains, though, if the employer breached a term of the contract, and the employee suffered quantifiable harm as a direct result, why isn’t the employee entitled to damages flowing from the breach?
What the Court has done is merge the breach of the “no harassment” term with the breach of the “notice of termination term” and assumed they are the same thing.  But they are not.   An employee is entitled to recover damages for wrongful dismissal (notice damages) and damages for breach of the independently actionable breach of a term prohibiting harassment of the employee.  The Supreme Court told us that in Vorvis v. ICBC and in Wallace.   I argued back in 2005 in a Queens Law Journal article (download here) that, when a contract includes a term requiring decent treatment of an employee, then damages are recoverable for breach of that term independent of any damages available for “wrongful dismissal”.  No one and nothing has yet convinced me that that is wrong.
In Honda, the Court said it is not necessary to look for an independent actionable wrong when the mental suffering is a result of the dismissal of the employee or the manner in which the employee is dismissed and the damages are reasonably foreseeable.  But Honda did not rule that damages for breach of an independent term of the contract prohibiting abuse of employees is not recoverable.   Of course it is, otherwise, the term is meaningless, and we all know that we are never to assume that the parties intended a meaningless contract term.
The real problem with Piresferreira is that the Court of Appeal treats the abuse of the employee as having occurred in the “manner of dismissal” so that it can sweep all the damage into the Honda framework. That is wrong. When the employee was abused, the employer had no intention of dismissing the employee and in fact the employer did not treat the employment relationship as over until some 4 months after the abuse had occurred.  This was abuse during the term of the contract, not “in the manner of dismissal”.   Honda (and before that Wallace) don’t apply here, since they only apply to employer misconduct  “in the manner of dismissal”.
When an employer abuses an employee during the life of the contract (rather than in the manner of dismissal), the normal rules of contract law apply.  If the contract includes a term prohibiting abuse of employees, then damages for breach of the contract should be recoverable according to the normal rules of contract law.  Otherwise, we are just bastardizing the employment contract model even further.
Maybe some of these issues will arise before the Supreme Court if leave is granted in the Piresferreira decision.

11 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Can an Employer Fire an Employee for "being too sexy"?
next post
New Website on Freedom of Association

You may also like

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

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

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

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 219 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24 Feb

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24 Feb

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
24 Feb

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • 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
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • 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.