Costs Finally, I mention the issue of costs, because it is a point I raise with my students about the economics of wrongful dismissal cases.The decision includes a detailed discussion of the costs issue.
- Chat with girl freee whit no inscription whit webcam
- Cam4 voyeur pics
- Free cougar chat line numbers
- Sex chat room kent no sign in
The employee argued that the relationships were consensual, and therefore the employer did not have cause.
It’s a sordid tale, because both the dismissed employee and both women were married, the husband of one of the women worked for the same employer, as did the employee’s daughter, and the activities took place in the workplace, parking lots, and various other compromising situations around a small town.
The Judge finds cause, relying on line of cases ruling that managerial employees have an implied obligation in their employment contracts to ensure that the workplace does not become poisoned due to sexual harassment and to protect the employer from potential legal action for such harassment (including Simpson v. He rejects that argument that the relationships were consensual, because the employees were subordinates and therefore ‘vulnerable’.
This conclusion follows notwithstanding the Judge’s finding that (and this is one of the great lines I’ve read in recent Canadian legal jurisprudence): In addition, after the first incident, the employer had given the employee a warning to avoid any sort of relationship with female employees, a warning which the employee ignored by entering into a new affair almost immediately.
The Notice Issue There’s a couple of other interesting legal points in the case.
Even though the judge finds cause (and therefore no notice is required), he goes on to consider what the notice would have been in case he was wrong about there being cause. The employer argued that the notice amount is set out in the contract, which read: The Judge ruled that that term was not applicable, because on its face, it only applied when the employer is not alleging cause.Here, the employer did allege cause, and therefore the term does not apply.At best, it is ambiguous as to whether the term applies to a dismissal for alleged cause, and we know from cases like Christensen v.Family Counselling Centre that an ambiguous notice term will not be enforced by the courts.In addition, the Judge noted that even if the contract term was applicable, he would likely have refused to enforce because it was ‘unconscionable’–it had the effect of reducing the notice period from 18 months to 9 weeks notice. Oracle for a discussion of the enforceability of a notice clause that complies with the ESA).The 18 months notice would have been reduced to 6 months, though, because the employee spent twelve months renovating his cottage with his forgiving spouse, rather than looking for a job.