|
WRONGFUL DISMISSAL
Wallace damages and the duty to mitigate
The quantification and entitlement to Wallace damages continues to be a perplexing problem for employers. A recent Nova Scotia Court of Appeal decision has held that, while there is no cap on the amount of Wallace damages that can be awarded, the award of 48 months at trial was clearly excessive and reduced it to 9 months. The Court concluded that Wallace damages should not be subject to the duty to mitigate, a question that had not been conclusively determined prior to this decision. As Eric Durnford and Amy Bradbury explain, the Court considered the nature and purpose of Wallace damages together with obiter comments of other courts in reaching its conclusions.
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS
third party interference carries risk
How far can an employer go to prevent a former employee or associate from working for one of its competitors, contractors, and agents or within his or her chosen field? As Janice Payne and Loreen Irvine explain, the decision in Drouillard v. Cogeco Cable Inc. demonstrates that any unwarranted conduct which leads a third party to refrain from hiring, rehiring or breach contracts or even to avoid contracting with the targeted individual can leave organizations open to an action for interference with economic relations.
WRONGFUL DISMISSAL
dismissal on eligibility for early retirement
What happens when an employee is dismissed just short of qualifying for an early retirement plan? What happens when an early retirement plan is cancelled during an employee’s notice period? Is the dismissed employee who would have qualified for the early retirement plan at some point during the notice period entitled to receive the enhanced package? Robert Bonhomme and Richard Sinclair examine two recent decisions that suggest that an employee in this situation would not be entitled to the early retirement plan.
COMPENSATION (STOCK OPTIONS)
extending employee ownership rights
While the employment law implications are still somewhat unclear, a number of important questions arise with respect to the status of the law respecting employee ownership rights in stock options, further to the Ontario Court of Appeal’s judgment in the family law case of Ross v. Ross. As outlined by Joe Conforti, the Court in Ross was seeking to determine whether and how to include a husband’s post-separation stock options for the purposes of the division of marital assets in a marriage breakdown.
|
|
Matthew L.O. Certosimo
Editor-in-Chief
Borden Ladner
Gervais LLP
Toronto
Robert Bonhomme
Heenan Blaikie LLP
Montreal
Joe Conforti
Goodmans LLP
Toronto
Eric Durnford, QC
McInnes Cooper
Halifax
Jamie Eddy
Patterson Palmer
Fredericton
Bruce R. Grist
Fasken Martineau
DuMoulin LLP
Vancouver
Brian J. Kenny, QC
MacPherson, Leslie
& Tyerman LLP
Regina
Janice B. Payne
Nelligan O’Brien
Payne LLP
Ottawa
Laurie Robson
Borden Ladner
Gervais LLP
Calgary
|