Even though the judge finds cause (and therefore no notice is required), he goes on to consider what the notice would have been in case he was wrong about there being cause. The employer argued that the notice amount is set out in the contract, which read: The Judge ruled that that term was not applicable, because on its face, it only applied when the employer is not alleging cause.
Here, the employer did allege cause, and therefore the term does not apply.
There was an interesting wrongful dismissal case out of the Ontario Superior Court recently called Cavaliere v. The employee was dismissed for cause (without notice) for engaging in sexual relationships with two subordinates spanning a decade.
The employee argued that the relationships were consensual, and therefore the employer did not have cause.
The employer wins this case, and asks for legal costs. 17) that the employer’s lawyers billed the employer close to $200,000 to defend the lawsuit.
If the employee had won, the damages could have been in the range of $190,000, according to the judge.
In addition, the Judge noted that even if the contract term was applicable, he would likely have refused to enforce because it was ‘unconscionable’–it had the effect of reducing the notice period from 18 months to 9 weeks notice. Oracle for a discussion of the enforceability of a notice clause that complies with the ESA).
The 18 months notice would have been reduced to 6 months, though, because the employee spent twelve months renovating his cottage with his forgiving spouse, rather than looking for a job.So you can see the point I make in class: that litigating a wrongful dismissal case is a costly, risky, and (often) economically irrational thing to do.: I’m 44 years old and a Senior Vice President at a family-run company.Costs Finally, I mention the issue of costs, because it is a point I raise with my students about the economics of wrongful dismissal cases.The decision includes a detailed discussion of the costs issue.This conclusion follows notwithstanding the Judge’s finding that (and this is one of the great lines I’ve read in recent Canadian legal jurisprudence): In addition, after the first incident, the employer had given the employee a warning to avoid any sort of relationship with female employees, a warning which the employee ignored by entering into a new affair almost immediately.