Insights
Each month, Spraggs Law publishes Vancouver Legal News, a curated selection of legal stories making headlines in British Columbia. This month, we examine four recent employment law decisions involving wrongful dismissal, constructive dismissal, and severance disputes, plus a ruling that clarifies the limits of suing employers for workplace injuries. We also explore two estate-related matters, including a denied request to vary a will, before concluding with a significant Supreme Court land title ruling that could reshape how BC handles fee simple property ownership.
Recent Wrongful and Constructive Dismissal Rulings in BC
Pandemic-related layoff leads to wrongful dismissal finding
The British Columbia Supreme Court case Gent v. Askanda Business Services Ltd. highlights the complexities of wrongful dismissal versus resignation. An employee who was laid off during the COVID-19 pandemic maintained he did not resign despite his employer’s claims. The court ruled in favour of Gent, emphasizing that clear and unequivocal evidence of resignation is necessary. Furthermore, the employer failed to seek clarification on Gent’s intentions, ultimately leading to an award of six months’ pay for wrongful dismissal. This case highlights the importance of clear communication and thorough documentation in employment relationships.
Non-compliance with vaccine policy is not constructive dismissal
The British Columbia Supreme Court’s ruling in Clark v. City of Prince George affirms the validity of employer-mandated vaccination policies, determining that an employee’s unpaid leave for non-compliance does not constitute constructive dismissal. The court emphasized the implied authority of employers to enforce health and safety measures and recognized the necessity of such policies during the pandemic. This decision provides crucial guidance for employers navigating similar legal challenges and reinforces their ability to implement reasonable workplace safety protocols.
Unfounded allegations lead to a costly penalty in dismissal case
The Supreme Court of British Columbia has ordered Macquarie Energy Canada to pay increased costs to a former employee, B.A.H., in a wrongful dismissal case due to three unfounded just cause allegations. While the court found no evidence of bad faith, it deemed the company’s conduct unusual enough to justify a higher cost indemnity. The allegations involved cannabis use, unauthorized pricing quotes, and disclosing confidential information, all deemed baseless. However, a fourth claim regarding a remote work policy was upheld, and each party will bear its own costs for the application. The ruling underscores the importance of substantiated claims in employment disputes and the potential financial repercussions of pursuing baseless allegations.
When Employer Protections Hold, and When They Don’t
Tribunal ruling shields employer from lawsuit under workers’ compensation law
A British Columbia Supreme Court judge upheld a tribunal’s decision preventing a First Nation finance director from suing her employer after a workplace assault. Despite filing a civil lawsuit and claiming various torts, the tribunal ruled her injuries fell under workers’ compensation provisions, which prevent legal action against employers for work-related incidents. The ruling emphasized the applicability of provincial workers’ compensation laws to federal workplaces and reinforced the balance between providing workers with no-fault compensation and protecting employers from lawsuits, with costs awarded to the defendants.
Ambiguous contractual language costs BC employer severance payout
A BC Supreme Court ruling awarded a 64-year-old engineer five months’ severance following his termination from a BC communications company, despite only six months of employment. The court rejected the company’s claim that the employee’s notice period was limited to five weeks, citing ambiguous contractual language and inadequate evidence. The judge highlighted the engineer’s senior role and extensive job search efforts, which revealed challenges in securing comparable employment. This decision reinforces the importance of clear contractual terms and reasonable notice based on individual circumstances in termination cases.
Recent Developments in BC Trusts and Estate Law
Size of inheritance key in denied request to vary will
Earlier this year, a British Columbia court denied a beneficiary’s request to vary her late mother’s will, which sought to establish a discretionary trust for her $1.8 million inheritance. The beneficiary sought this adjustment to protect her disability benefits, arguing the will lacked adequate provisions for her support. The court ruled that the will’s distribution was sufficient, emphasizing that the beneficiary’s inheritance could meet her needs without jeopardizing her benefits. Ultimately, the court found that no moral obligation was breached by the mother’s decision not to include a trust, deeming the will’s terms appropriate given the size of the estate. The court’s decision reinforces the need for claimants to prove a will’s failure to make adequate provisions before it can grant an application to vary a will.
Landmark Land Title Ruling Challenges Foundations of BC Land Ownership
Aboriginal title recognized as superior to fee simple in BC case
A landmark land title ruling by the British Columbia Supreme Court in Cowichan Tribes v Canada establishes Aboriginal title as a superior claim over fee simple interests, creating significant uncertainty for private landowners. The court concluded that historical Crown grants infringe upon Cowichan’s Aboriginal rights and invalidated many fee simple titles within the claimed area. This decision challenges the traditional land title system and raises critical questions about property ownership in BC. With the provincial government planning to appeal, the ruling underscores the complex interplay between Indigenous land rights and private ownership, potentially reshaping the future of land titles in the province.