Ontario: Court Gives Employee Benefit of the Doubt in Mitigation of Damages

By Amanda Boyce August 24, 2017
LIKE SAVE
Ontario: Court Gives Employee Benefit of the Doubt in Mitigation of Damages

In Ontario, dismissed employees have an obligation to attempt to mitigate their damages by seeking alternate employment. In practice, it can be difficult for employers to prove that dismissed employees have failed to make reasonable efforts to mitigate. A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision dealt a blow to employers' ability to credit employee mitigation efforts and income against wrongful dismissal damages.


The Case

Esther Brake had worked for various McDonald's franchises in some capacity for more than 25 years. She was employed by one particular franchise, PJ-M2R Restaurant Inc., for a significant portion of that time. She had been working as a restaurant manager for a number of years when she was dismissed without notice and without receiving her statutory entitlements under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

Employees whose employment contracts do not limit them to their statutory minimum entitlements upon termination often receive generous reasonable notice awards from the courts when they are dismissed. These awards are ostensibly subject to employees' duty to mitigate their losses. This means that a terminated employee cannot sit idly by and collect damages from his or her previous employer without trying to search for new employment. Further, it means that any income the employee earns from other sources during the reasonable notice period is ordinarily deducted from any award he or she receives.

The trial judge determined that PJ-M2R did not have just cause to dismiss Brake. She was 62 years old, and the trial judge determined that she had the equivalent of 20 years of service. Ultimately, the trial judge found that Brake was entitled to 20 months of reasonable notice, inclusive of statutory severance payments. He further found that she had fulfilled her duty to mitigate her losses and did not deduct any of the income she had earned during the notice period from the award.

[SHRM members-only online discussion platform: SHRM Connect]

The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the findings of the trial judge. On appeal, the company argued that Brake had not made reasonable efforts to mitigate and that the trial judge had failed to deduct income the employee had earned during the reasonable notice period from the award as mitigation earnings.

Reasonable Efforts to Mitigate?

The evidence at trial showed that while Brake had applied to cashier positions at various retailers, and had briefly attempted to start a baby-sitting and cleaning service, she had not applied to any comparable restaurant management positions for the first six months after her employment was terminated. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's ruling that the employee had made reasonable efforts and noted that the test is whether the employee "has stood idly or unreasonably by, or has tried without success to obtain other employment."

The court found that terminated employees are entitled to consider their own interests and will not be found to have failed to mitigate merely because they take some career risks that do not minimize the cost to their former employers.

To Deduct or Not to Deduct?

The court noted that 20 months was the global assessment for damages made by the trial judge and that it included the employee's statutory entitlements. Statutory entitlements under the act are not subject to mitigation because they are not damages; rather, they are owed in any event.

Moreover, the court noted that it did not need to determine which portion of the income had been made during the statutory notice period, as it declined to treat any of the income as mitigation income. The employee had earned part-time income as a cashier at Sobeys while she had been working full time for PJ-M2R.

The court found that to be considered mitigation income, the employment must be mutually exclusive with the performance of an employee's former contract. As such, the court held as follows: "Therefore, if an employee has committed herself to full-time employment with one employer, but her employment contract permits for simultaneous employment with another employer, and the first employer terminates her without notice, any income from the second employer that she could have earned while continuing with the first is not deductible from her damages."

Brake v. PJ-M2R Restaurants Inc., Ont. Ct. App., 2017 ONCA 402 (CanLII) (May 23, 2017).

Professional Pointer: The court suggested that when a dismissed employee's income is substantial enough to be more than merely supplemental, it may be proper to consider which portion could still be seen as supplemental and which portion amounts to mitigation income, and to treat the two amounts separately. This novel analytical framework may unduly complicate notice period assessments in the future.

Amanda Boyce is an attorney with Stringer LLP, the Worklaw® Network member firm in Toronto.

 

Was this article useful? SHRM offers thousands of tools, templates and other exclusive member benefits, including compliance updates, sample policies, HR expert advice, education discounts, a growing online member community and much more. Join/Renew Now and let SHRM help you work smarter.


LIKE SAVE

Job Finder

Find an HR Job Near You
Search Jobs

Discover what’s trending in HR

Search and download FREE white papers from industry experts.

Search and download FREE white papers from industry experts.

LEARN MORE

SPONSOR OFFERS

HR Daily Newsletter

News, trends and analysis, as well as breaking news alerts, to help HR professionals do their jobs better each business day.