In Reotech Construction Ltd. v. Snider, BCSC 317, Justice Fleming, sitting on appeal from a decision of the Provincial Court, found that the trial judge erred when the Court failed to deduct the $9,000 CERB payment received by the Plaintiff from the damage award.
The Court referred to the following factors in making this decision:
- CERB was not private insurance nor did the Plaintiff contribute (unlike EI where the employee pays part of the premium).
- here was no obligation under the CERB legislation whereby the Plaintiff would be required to repay CERB (again unlike EI).
- As such, the application of the collateral benefit rule did not apply.
- CERB was designed to be a indemnification against wage loss and to not deduct it from the award would put the Plaintiff a better position than had the contract not been breached by failing to pay reasonable notice.
- One year fixed term contract means what it says - April 15, 2024
- In proving sexual harassment you can’t just rely on an investigation report - March 19, 2024
- Ethical veganism is not a creed under the Ontario Human Rights Code - February 20, 2024