• First Reference
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Blog Signup 📨

First Reference Talks

Discussions on Human Resources, Employment Law, Payroll and Internal Controls

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources
  • Buy Policies
You are here: Home / Employee Relations / Character of employment

By Rudner Law, Employment / HR Law & Mediation | 3 Minutes Read August 7, 2020

Character of employment

character of employment

We all know that “character of employment” is one of the core factors when assessing the period of reasonable notice, but how much of an impact does it have?

In 2017, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice reiterated the importance of character of employment in Skov v G&K Services Canada, in which the character of the plaintiff’s employment was in question. A mini-trial proceeding was ordered in place of summary judgment to determine whether the plaintiff was a “manager” at the company at the time of his dismissal. The court held that character of employment was an issue relevant to both the determination of reasonable notice owing to the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s mitigation efforts.

Background

The plaintiff was 54-year-old Kevin Skov, who had been working at the defendant company for 21 years when he was terminated without cause in 2016. Skov held the title of “Customer Development Manager” and earned an annual salary of around $120,000, with bonuses provided under the company’s Management Incentive Plan. The employer contended that Skov was a manager in name only, and that his long service had warranted an “honorary” salary disproportionate to his position.

The plaintiff brought forward a motion for summary judgment but was denied due to the complex nature of the character of his employment. This denial served to reaffirm the importance of “character of employment” as a Bardal factor.

After reviewing the testimony of his managers and co-workers, the court held that Skov’s role was not “senior and managerial” as he had claimed. This was due to his lack of a leadership role, despite being paid as a mid to low-level manager. No one reported directly to the plaintiff and he exercised only minor discretion in his role, leading the court to believe that his function did not cross over into that of a manager. As such, the court decided that an appropriate notice period for the plaintiff was 18 months.

Character of employment

The plaintiff relied heavily upon the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Di Tomaso v Crown Metal Packaging Canada and other cases to submit that the jurisprudence has distanced itself from the idea that lower level, unskilled employees deserve less notice because they have an easier time finding alternative employment. Prior to that decision, there was a widely recognized, though informal, cap on notice of twelve months for most lower-level employees.

However, character of employment is still a relevant factor in assessing appropriate notice periods, as the Court in this case made clear when it ordered a mini-trial so that evidence could be heard on the issue of whether the plaintiff was a manager or not. While declining in importance, the nature of a plaintiff’s role is still a significant factor to consider. The Court also considered the plaintiff’s length of service and age in their assessment of reasonable notice, finding that both factors warranted a substantial notice period.

Mitigation of damages

In this case, the notice period was reduced due to the plaintiff’s failure to mitigate his damages. While the plaintiff had applied to 43 jobs on LinkedIn as well as 80 additional jobs, he had lied about his role at G&K, claiming to have been the “Director of Process Improvement and Customer Development” on his resumé, a title he had never held. The Superior Court agreed with the defendants, who claimed that his mitigation efforts were compromised by his decision to “overshoot” and seek employment at a higher level than he was qualified to. The court said they could not condone this behaviour and reduced his reasonable notice period to 16 months.

Takeaways

This case confirms that the nature of a dismissed employee’s role continues to be a relevant factor in assessing reasonable notice. Where the issue is unclear, summary judgment will not be granted, as evidence will be necessary so that a Court can determine the nature of the former employee’s role.

This case also serves as a stark reminder that plaintiffs will be penalized where they fail to meet their obligation to make reasonable efforts to find new employment. In this case, the issue was not the extent or volume of the plaintiff’s efforts, as is often the case, but the fact that he was dishonest in his characterization of his previous role and focussed on roles that were not reasonable. As a result, his recovery was reduced.

By Ayesha Adamjee (Summer Law Student) and Stuart Rudner

  • About
  • Latest Posts
Follow me
Rudner Law, Employment / HR Law & Mediation
Employment Lawyers and Mediators at Rudner Law
Rudner Law is a Canadian Employment Law firm. They provide clients with strategic advice regarding all aspects of the employment relationship, negotiate and advocate on their behalf, and represent them before courts, mediators, and tribunals. Blog posts are written by Stuart Rudner, the founder and Managing Partner at Rudner Law, Brittany Taylor, Partner,Nadia Zaman, Associate, and Geoffrey Lowe, Associate.
Follow me
Latest posts by Rudner Law, Employment / HR Law & Mediation (see all)
  • Time theft: Employee ordered to repay employer - February 3, 2023
  • Court provides clarity on fixed term contracts - January 6, 2023
  • Remote, hybrid & back to the office: What you should know - December 2, 2022

Article by Rudner Law, Employment / HR Law & Mediation / Employee Relations, Payroll / Bardal Factors, Mitigating damages, mitigation efforts, notice period, reasonable notice, termination

Share with a friend or colleague

Get the Latest Posts in your Inbox for Free!

Electronic monitoring

About Rudner Law, Employment / HR Law & Mediation

Rudner Law is a Canadian Employment Law firm. They provide clients with strategic advice regarding all aspects of the employment relationship, negotiate and advocate on their behalf, and represent them before courts, mediators, and tribunals. Blog posts are written by Stuart Rudner, the founder and Managing Partner at Rudner Law, Brittany Taylor, Partner, Nadia Zaman, Associate, and Geoffrey Lowe, Associate.

Footer

About us

Established in 1995, First Reference is the leading publisher of up to date, practical and authoritative HR compliance and policy databases that are essential to ensure organizations meet their due diligence and duty of care requirements.

First Reference Talks

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources
  • Buy Policies

Main Menu

  • About First Reference
  • Resources
  • Contact us
  • 1 800 750 8175

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

We welcome your comments on our blog articles. However, we do not respond to specific legal questions in this space.
We do not provide any form of legal advice or legal opinion. Please consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction or try one of our products.


Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · First Reference Inc. · All Rights Reserved
Legal and Copyright Notices · Publisher's Disclaimer · Privacy Policy · Accessibility Policy