


Employees’ Duty to Mitigate: Comparable Employment Does Not Mean Any Employment
Employees’ Duty to Mitigate: Comparable Employment Does Not Mean Any Employment
The Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed in a recent decision that an employee’s duty to mitigate following a without cause termination does not require the employee to accept a notably lesser position with the same employer.
In Dussault v. Imperial Oil Limited, the Court held that despite the general rule that an employee may be obligated to mitigate his or her loss by accepting a comparable position with the company, in order to be comparable, offers of employment must be offer comparable status, hours, and remuneration of the employee’s employment with his/her former employer. Put simply, comparable employment does not mean any employment.
Background
The two plaintiffs in Dussault were managers with Imperial Oil Limited (“Imperial”) for over 39 and 36 years respectively. Their remuneration included participating in a savings plan, whereby contributions were split between savings and a retirement income plan.
Following the sale of Imperial’s retail business to Mac’s Convenience Stores Inc. (“Mac’s”), the plaintiffs received employment offers with the following terms:
their base salaries (as with Imperial) would remain the same for a period of 18 months;
Mac’s would not recognize their years of service with Imperial; and,
Imperial would provide “lump-sum payments” to make up for the reduction in value of the benefit plans contingent on the acceptance of Mac’s offer, resignation from Imperial, and signing of a release in favour of Imperial.
Both plaintiffs rejected offers from Mac’s, alleged that they were wrongfully dismissed, and sought summary judgment. The motion judge held that the plaintiffs were reasonable in refusing the offers from Mac’s, notwithstanding their duty to mitigate. The motion judge emphasized Imperial’s demand that the plaintiffs sign a release in order to receive the lump-sum payment in lieu of lost benefit value and Imperial’s failure to recognize the plaintiffs’ past service. Overall, the motion judge found that the proposed positions with Mac’s were not sufficient comparable to the plaintiffs’ previous jobs, particularly in terms of salary and benefits, and awarded each 26 months’ notice.
Court of Appeal Decision
Imperial appealed, submitting that the motion judge erred in finding that the respondents had not mitigated their damages by accepting comparable employment with Mac’s.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Imperial’s appeal, finding that the offers from Mac’s were insufficient and that the plaintiffs / respondents acted reasonably in refusing them. The Court of Appeal emphasized that “comparable employment” does not mean “any employment”. In order to be “comparable”, offers of employment must be comprehensive of the status, hours, and remuneration of the employee’s employment with his/her former employer.
Key Takeaways
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Dussault highlights employers’ need to carefully craft offers to employees when attempting to mitigate the impact of a without cause termination, especially when making an offer after acquiring a business. Whether or not an employee’s decision to refuse an offer was reasonable is a fact-driven inquiry based on factors such as the timing of the offer (pre-termination vs post-termination) and the offer’s terms, especially remuneration. Employers, especially those involved in asset transactions, should seek advice as to how to draft offers of employment to the seller’s employees.
by Kyle Lambert and Shahnaz Dhanani, Summer Student
A Cautionary Note
The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.
© McMillan LLP 2019
Insights (5 Posts)View More
Do You See What I See? Fake AI Cases Can Result in Real Contempt
Reliance on an AI hallucinated case in submissions to the court can constitute a breach of professional obligations and may amount to contempt.
Canada’s Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act: Where to next for companies?
Join subject matter experts from McMillan and Pillar Two for a webinar to support companies in addressing their forced labour, child labour and other modern slavery risks, and to support their reporting obligations under the Canadian Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act.
Why Extended Producer Responsibility and the Circular Economy Demand Boardroom Action
Discussion of global amendments to Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and right to repair laws, impacting product lifecycle management and regulatory compliance for businesses.
Québec’s Bill 96: Where we are now after four years and the road ahead
Join Enda Wong, Business Law, Shari Munk-Manel, Employment & Labour Relations, and Émile Catimel-Marchand, Financial Services and Regulatory as they discuss Bill 96, its impacts on the day-to-day operations of companies doing business in Québec, including in the areas of employment, contracting, product design, labelling and advertising.
Put Your Best Foot Forward: New Evidence Requirements for Trademark Appeals
Discussion of amendments to Canada's Trademarks Act impacting timing of delivery of evidence to the Trademark Opposition Board or later to the Federal Courts.
Get updates delivered right to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time.