Since Honda v. Keays, employment law and human resources practitioners have been watching how the law regarding bad faith dismissals has developed, in particular, the assessment of moral damages. A recently published decision has added some clarity to the moral damages question. The case, Canada (Attorney General) v. Tipple (2011) dealt with the well known case of Douglas Tipple.
A recent case from the Alberta Court of Appeal suggests that Honda damages, previously known as Wallace damages, are becoming less of a threat for employers in wrongful dismissal suits.
A recent case out of the Quebec Superior Court Lysecky v. United Parcel Service of Canada Limited 2010 QCCS 5098 is indicative how the question of “moral damages” is still unsettled law.
Employers that dismiss employees without cause, and without ensuring that they take steps to preclude all potential claims, can face significant liability beyond the “typical” wrongful dismissal damages. The recent decision of Mr. Justice Echlin of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Brito v. Canac Kitchens is an example of the type of situation employer’s dread. In that case…
Update on damages arising out of bad faith in the course of dismissal: Soost vs. Merrill Lynch Canada Inc.
The Court of Appeal in Alberta has just ruled that there was no basis to award “The Damages Formerly Known as Wallace” in Soost v. Merrill Lynch Canada Inc., dramatically reducing the value of the award.