{"id":81,"date":"2019-06-14T11:17:03","date_gmt":"2019-06-14T15:17:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.debousquet.com\/blog\/?p=81"},"modified":"2022-03-09T15:13:08","modified_gmt":"2022-03-09T20:13:08","slug":"expectation-of-good-faith-for-employers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.debousquet.com\/blog\/2019\/06\/14\/expectation-of-good-faith-for-employers\/","title":{"rendered":"Expectation of good faith for employers"},"content":{"rendered":"

The duty of good faith imposed on employers is a well-established principle of Canadian employment law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Following the decision in Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., bad faith conduct by an employer
\nbecame yet another factor Courts will consider when determining the period of reasonable notice for an
\nemployee. Bad faith damages were typically referred to as Wallace damages and allowed Courts to
\nextend the reasonable notice period where bad faith conduct by an employer was found.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court of Canada changed the calculation for bad faith conduct in their decision in Honda
\nCanada Inc. v. Keays. Now, damages for bad faith conduct are only recoverable if the employee can
\nprove real and measurable harm as a result of the bad faith conduct. In other words, bad faith
\ndamages are no longer available simply as a result of being dismissed.<\/p>\n

More recently, the Supreme Court has expanded the duty of good faith to apply to all contract law as an
\n\u2018organizing principal\u2019. In Bhasin v. Hrynew, the Court affirmed good faith as an \u201corganizing principal\u201d and
\nthat \u201cparties must not lie or otherwise knowingly mislead each other about matters directly linked to
\nthe performance of a contract.\u201d The decision in Bhasin has effectively broadened the application of good
\nfaith to all matters of contract law.<\/p>\n

The case of Avalon Ford Sales (1996) Limited v Evans<\/a><\/em>, is an excellent example of the application of good
\nfaith in the context of employment. In Avalon, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal
\nconsidered whether it was reasonable for an employer to conclude that an employee had tendered a
\nvalid resignation. In this case, Evans was the commercial fleet manager for the largest Ford dealership in
\nAtlantic Canada. Evans had made a mistake regarding inventory that resulted in a vehicle being
\ndelivered to a customer before the dealership had received payment for the vehicle.<\/p>\n

After a contentious meeting with his supervisor, Evans suffered a medically diagnosed acute stress
\nreaction and left the office. He returned to work in the evening. Evans was visibly agitated upon his
\nreturn, handed in his keys and cellphone and stated \u201cI\u2019m done\u201d to his immediate supervisor. Evans\u2019
\nsupervisor advised the Owner that Evans had resigned. A few days later, the employee returned to work
\nto meet with the Owner of the dealership. The Owner was upset that the employee had left and harshly
\ncriticized his actions. The employee provided a medical note from a doctor for a short-term disability
\napplication. The Owner tore up the medical note and refused to sign the employer portion of the
\napplication. Evans was told to leave the premises.<\/p>\n

The Court determined that Avalon had breached its duty of good faith in failing to give the Plaintiff an
\nopportunity to cool off and reconsider his drastic action. In failing to make further enquiries regarding
\nthe resignation and showing a complete disregard for Evans\u2019 health issues, Avalon\u2019s treatment of Evans
\nwas found to have breached the duty of good faith. The Court in Avalon is yet another example of how
\nCourts will consider the duty of good faith for the entire duration of an employment relationship.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The duty of good faith imposed on employers is a well-established principle of Canadian employment law. Following the decision in Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., bad faith conduct by an employer became yet another factor Courts will consider when determining the period of reasonable notice for an employee. Bad faith damages were typically referred to as Wallace damages and allowed Courts to extend the reasonable notice period where bad faith conduct by an employer was found. The Supreme Court of Canada changed the calculation for bad faith conduct in their decision in Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays. Now, damages…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,12],"tags":[4,13,14],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.debousquet.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.debousquet.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.debousquet.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.debousquet.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.debousquet.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=81"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.debousquet.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":717,"href":"https:\/\/www.debousquet.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81\/revisions\/717"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.debousquet.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.debousquet.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.debousquet.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}