Court of Appeal: No Duty to Mitigate if Employment for Fixed Term

On April 8, 2016, the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed that an employee whose employment is subject to a fixed term, is upon early termination of his employment, entitled to payment of an amount equal to his salary and benefits for the unexpired term of the contract, with no duty to mitigate.

 

In the case of Howard v. Benson Group Inc. 2016 ONCA 256 the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the summary judgment decision of Justice Donald MacKenzie of the Superior Court of Justice.  Benson had employed Howard pursuant to the terms of a written employment agreement.  The agreement provided for a fixed five year term but also provided that Benson could terminate Howard’s employment at any time “in accordance with the terms and conditions of this agreement”.  Specifically, a paragraph of the agreement provided that upon termination, Howard would only be entitled to receive  amounts in accordance with the Employment Standards Act of Ontario. 

 

Accordingly, when Benson terminated Howard’s employment almost two years into the contract, it argued that its liability was limited to two weeks salary in lieu of notice.  The motion judge found that the clause was unenforceable due to ambiguity and awarded Benson common law damages for wrongful dismissal, subject to a duty to mitigate.

 

The Ontario Court of Appeal (Justices Cronk, Pepall and Miller) disagreed with the motion judge.  Justice Miller wrote the decision of the court.  Justice Miller held that the applicable standard of review in this case was one of correctness.  In other words, where the motion judge’s decision contained an "extricable question of law" it was reviewable on the correctness standard. 

 

Justice Miller held that where an employment agreement states unambiguously that the employment is for a fixed term it will oust the implied term of an agreement that reasonable notice must be given for termination without cause.  If the parties to such a fixed term contract do not specify a pre-determined notice period, the employee is entitled, on early termination, to the wages he would have received to the end of the term.  Justice Miller cited an Ontario Court of Appeal case called Bowes v. Goss Power Products Ltd. 2012 ONCA 425  for such authority. 

 

Because the impugned clause was void for uncertainty, Howard’s employment agreement unambiguously remained a fixed term contract. 

 

With respect to Howard’s duty to mitigate his damages, Justice Miller found that the leading case from the Ontario Court of Appeal was Bowes.  Bowes held that a contractually fixed term of notice is distinguishable from common law reasonable notice.  Where the agreement stipulates a fixed term of notice or payment in lieu, it should be treated as fixing liquidated damages or a contractual amount.  In such cases, there was no obligation on the employee to mitigate his damages.  Thus, the duty to mitigate does not apply to liquidated damages or contractual amounts.

 

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the motion judge for determination of the quantum of damages to which Howard was entitled.

Regards,

Blair

Ontario Appeal Court Reduces 70 Year Old's Dismissal Notice Period By Six Months

In a recent ruling, the Ontario Court of Appeal reduced the wrongful dismissal award of a 70 year old employee by 6 months.

 

In the case of Kotecha v Affinia Canada ULC (2014 ONCA 411).  The Court reduced the motion judge’s award of a 24 and one-half months to 18 months on the basis that "there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify" the longer award.

 

Affinia is a manufacturer of auto parts.  Kotecha was 70 years old and had worked for Affinia for 20 years as a machine operator.  He installed rivets on brake pads.  At the time of his dismissal, Kotecha was earning $18.23/hour.  Based on a 40 hour work week, this wage equated to approximately $38,000.00 per year. 

 

Affinia admitted that Kotecha was dismissed without cause.  Kotecha brought a motion for a summary judgment to fix the length of the notice requirement and his damages. 

 

At the motion, the judge considered the factors in Bardal v. Globe and Mail Ltd  as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada i.e. the character of the employment, length of service, age of the employee and the availability of similar employment having regard to the experience training and qualifications of the employee.  The judge concluded that this was a simple case of wrongful dismissal and having regard to other cases with similar facts, fixed the notice period at 22 months.  Her ruling did not include the 11 weeks of working notice that Affinia had given Kotecha. 

 

Affinia appealed to the Court of Appeal.  Before the appeal court, Affinia argued that the motion judge had erred in disregarding an unreported judgment of another judge in a case against it (Sharma v Affinia Canada) and that on almost identical facts, that judge in that case had awarded 13 months as reasonable notice.  Affinia argued that the motion judge was bound by the doctrine of stare decisis to award a similar period of reasonable notice in this case.

 

The Court of Appeal rejected that argument.  It reiterated that the principle of stare decisis required that courts render decisions that are consistent with the previous decisions of higher courts.  While other decisions of the Superior Court are persuasive, they are not binding.  Moreover, the Court held that the determination of the appropriate notice period is a very fact-specific exercise and is calculated in accordance with numerous factors set out in Bardal.

 

However, the Court held that judges should strive to ensure that notice periods, which are inherently individual, are consistent with the case law.  The Court found that was not done in this case.  Taking into account the period of working notice that Affinia had given Mr. Kotecha, the total notice period awarded to him was 24 and ½ months.  The Court held that this was excessive and that there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify the award.  It did not accept Affinia’s position that a 13 month notice period was appropriate but rather “adjusted” the notice period to 18 months, less the working notice of 11 weeks. 

The decision seems harsh given that, at 70 years old,  Mr. Kotecha has virtually no chance of getting another job.  One would have thought that his advanced age was an "exceptional circumstance" that would have persuaded the court to award a period of notice in the 20 to 24 month range. 

Regards,

Blair

 

No Duty to Mitigate Where Notice Period Fixed

In Bowes v. Goss Power Products Ltd., a unanimous panel of five judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that an employee has no duty to mitigate damages (unless the employment agreement stipulates such obligation) when the employment agreement fixes the notice period or termination pay in lieu of notice.

In this case, the employee signed an employment agreement for the position of executive vice president of sales and marketing for the employer. The agreement fixed his entitlement to six months’ notice or pay in lieu of notice if the employee’s employment was terminated. The agreement was silent on mitigation.

On April 13, 2011, the employer terminated the employee’s employment without cause and advised that he was entitled to salary continuance for the contractually fixed six month period. Shortly after termination, the employee secured a new job with an equivalent salary. The employer took the position that the employee had mitigated his damages and was only entitled to receive the minimum statutory entitlement under the Employment Standards Act.  The  employee disagreed and commenced an application in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice seeking a declaration that he was entitled to the full six months base salary in accordance with the agreement and that such payment was not subject to a duty to mitigate.

The applications judge held that simply because the parties agreed on the period of reasonable notice did not mean that the obligation to mitigate is ousted by agreement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The Court held that by contracting for a fixed sum of termination/severance pay, the parties displaced the common law regime thereby contracting out of the Bardal “reasonable notice” approach or damages in lieu of notice.

The Court of Appeal gave the following reasons to support its conclusion:

a)  the duty to mitigate is not applicable if the damages are either liquidated or a contractual sum;

b)  It would be unfair to permit an employer to opt for certainty by specifying a fixed amount of damages and then allow the employer to later seek to obtain a lower amount at the expense of the employee by raising an issue of mitigation that was not mentioned in the employment agreement;

c)  It is counter-intuitive for the parties to contract for certainty and finality, and yet leave mitigation as a live issue with the uncertainty, risk and litigation that would ensue as a consequence; and

d)  A broad release in an employment agreement demonstrates an intention to avoid resort to the courts, confirms a desire for finality, and bolsters a finding that the parties intended that mitigation would not be required unless the agreement expressly stipulates to the contrary.

Bowes v. Goss Power Products Ltd., 2012 ONCA 425

Regards,

Blair