The Current state of wrongful dismissal in Employment Law and why we believe it needs to be changed.
The current state of wrongful dismissal is that damages are awarded based on what notice of lieu an employer/employee receives (Richard A. Yates, 2011).
Weakness for employee:
• Not compensated for pain and suffering, only awarded difference of notice they should have received and benefits/pension they would have received (Richard A. Yates, 2011).
• Fiduciary duty obligation causes a restriction on the employee ability to use their skillset, additionally restricts employee’s ability to work geographically (Richard A. Yates, 2011).
• Notice not needed if employer believes they have cause, even if said cause may be true
• Employees have less …show more content…
Ratio: You must have just cause to terminate without notice, no matter what.
Case Brief 2
Hilton v. Norampac Inc.
(Hilton v. Norampac Inc., 2002)
Facts: Hilton was terminated for refusing to abide by new contract conditions
• Plaintiff’s argument: Hilton believes he was wrongfully dismissed from his job, due to one-sided changes to his contract
• Defendants argument: They had rightful dismissal due to his refusal to follow terms of contract
Issue: Hilton not given reasonable notice to accept or decline new terms
Held: Hilton awarded damages for wrongful dismissal as he was not given opportunity to consider new obligations.
Law: Contract Law
Reasons: Failure of consideration so, terms are not binding
Ratio: Consideration needed in order to achieve constructive dismissal in regards to changes on contract terms. Works Cited
Hilton v. Norampac Inc., V-193113CM (Ontario Superior Court of Justice May 22, 2002).
Honda Canada Inc. V. Keays, 31739 (Supreme Court of Canada June 27, 2008).
Richard A. Yates, T. B.-K. (2011). Buisness Law in Canada (9th ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Pearson Canada
The current state of wrongful dismissal is that damages are awarded based on what notice of lieu an employer/employee receives (Richard A. Yates, 2011).
Weakness for employee:
• Not compensated for pain and suffering, only awarded difference of notice they should have received and benefits/pension they would have received (Richard A. Yates, 2011).
• Fiduciary duty obligation causes a restriction on the employee ability to use their skillset, additionally restricts employee’s ability to work geographically (Richard A. Yates, 2011).
• Notice not needed if employer believes they have cause, even if said cause may be true
• Employees have less …show more content…
Ratio: You must have just cause to terminate without notice, no matter what.
Case Brief 2
Hilton v. Norampac Inc.
(Hilton v. Norampac Inc., 2002)
Facts: Hilton was terminated for refusing to abide by new contract conditions
• Plaintiff’s argument: Hilton believes he was wrongfully dismissed from his job, due to one-sided changes to his contract
• Defendants argument: They had rightful dismissal due to his refusal to follow terms of contract
Issue: Hilton not given reasonable notice to accept or decline new terms
Held: Hilton awarded damages for wrongful dismissal as he was not given opportunity to consider new obligations.
Law: Contract Law
Reasons: Failure of consideration so, terms are not binding
Ratio: Consideration needed in order to achieve constructive dismissal in regards to changes on contract terms. Works Cited
Hilton v. Norampac Inc., V-193113CM (Ontario Superior Court of Justice May 22, 2002).
Honda Canada Inc. V. Keays, 31739 (Supreme Court of Canada June 27, 2008).
Richard A. Yates, T. B.-K. (2011). Buisness Law in Canada (9th ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Pearson Canada