In the ever-evolving landscape of employment law, the case of Kinsdale Carriers, 2024 ONSC 1060, emerges as a beacon for understanding the intricacies of wrongful dismissal, mitigation of damages, and the responsibilities of both employer and employee in the wake of a termination. This case, presided over by Justice K.A. Gorman, delves into the complexities surrounding a termination triggered by the
economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic, offering critical insights into the legal obligations and rights at play.
The plaintiff, a long-serving employee of over 22 years at Kinsdale Carriers, faced sudden termination due to the company’s closure, sparked by the economic strains of the pandemic. Seeking 22 months of reasonable notice, the plaintiff embarked on a legal journey that would test the bounds of wrongful dismissal and mitigation laws in Ontario.
The heart of the dispute revolved around three pivotal questions: Did the plaintiff receive adequate notice of the company’s closure? Did she fail to mitigate her damages by refusing comparable employment? And what constitutes a reasonable notice period under these circumstances?
The Legal Battle Unfolds
The plaintiff’s tenure at Kinsdale Carriers was marked by dedication and evolving responsibilities, from accounts receivable to dispatch duties. Despite the sudden nature of her termination, the defense argued that the plaintiff was well aware of the company’s
declining fortunes, thus anticipating the possibility of closure.
Central to the case was the concept of mitigation, where the plaintiff’s actions post- termination were scrutinized. The defendant presented evidence suggesting the plaintiff declined a comparable job offer from Zehr Transport, thereby failing to mitigate her damages. The plaintiff, however, contended that the role offered was not comparable, emphasizing her reluctance to resume full-time dispatch duties which had previously contributed to workplace stress and a medical leave.
Justice Gorman’s Analysis
Justice Gorman meticulously dissected the evidence, addressing the nuances of what constitutes “comparable employment” and the expectations of mitigation. The court found that the plaintiff did, indeed, have a constructive awareness of the company’s impending closure, thus diminishing the argument for a lack of notice.
Justice Gorman found that the Plaintiff was in a role with significant dispatching responsibilities, despite her evidence that dispatching duties only took up a small portion of her job responsibilities. When she was offered a position by Zehr Transport, this constituted a role that was comparable in hours, status, and renumeration and the Plaintiff had failed to mitigate her damages by failing to accept this role. As a result, the Plaintiff was not entitled to reasonable notice damages.
Monkhouse Law is an employment law firm located in Toronto that focuses on employees’ issues. Please call us at 416-907-9249 or fill out this quick form for a free 30-minute phone consultation.