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

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

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

Subscribe via Email

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

Join 337 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law #Gig to the masses. Alpaca ❤️ @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @LWPHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

David J. Doorey🇨🇦
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
16h

A Nationwide Bargaining Unit to Fight Starbucks Is a Moon Shot Worth Trying

My latest on ⁦@jacobin⁩. https://jacobin.com/2022/08/starbucks-service-unions-nlrb-law-centralized-bargaining/

Reply on Twitter 1556339370461786112Retweet on Twitter 15563393704617861122Like on Twitter 155633937046178611211Twitter 1556339370461786112
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
19h

Luck is part of it for sure. Right time right place. True of a lot of jobs not just academia.

But in my experience sitting on lots of academic hiring committees, people selected have superior CVs. 60 applicants, one position. Not all luck. It’s a very competitive job market.

David Webster@dwebsterhist

I've been hired for 2 tenure track jobs and been on multiple committees, sent in more than 100 job applications, and done multiple interviews. Here is my thread 🛢
of job market advice for early career academics based on decades of experience:

1. Get lucky.

Reply on Twitter 1556285407817506817Retweet on Twitter 1556285407817506817Like on Twitter 15562854078175068171Twitter 1556285407817506817
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
6 Aug

Sunflowers!

Reply on Twitter 1556032894640037890Retweet on Twitter 1556032894640037890Like on Twitter 15560328946400378905Twitter 1556032894640037890
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
  • 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
  • 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.