← University
Wrongful Dismissal and Constructive Dismissal
0 of 9

A family-owned manufacturing company in southwestern Ontario had employed a production manager for 14 years when the ownership passed from the founder to the founder's adult children following the founder's retirement. The production manager had joined the company at age 38, working initially as a floor supervisor before being promoted to the management role 9 years into his tenure. His responsibilities had expanded over time to include scheduling, quality control oversight, and direct supervision of 22 production staff. The employment relationship had never been governed by a written contract, and the company had no formal policies addressing termination procedures, severance entitlements, or the circumstances under which employment might end.

Within 8 months of the ownership transition, the new leadership decided to restructure operations. The restructuring plan called for consolidating the production manager's role with that of the logistics coordinator, creating a single position with a significantly altered scope of duties, a different reporting structure, and a reduction in supervisory responsibility from 22 staff to 6. When presented with the proposed changes, the production manager was given 2 weeks to accept the new role or face termination. The new position would have required him to report to a newly hired operations director rather than directly to ownership, would have eliminated his quality control responsibilities entirely, and would have reduced his annual compensation by approximately 18 percent.

The production manager declined the restructured position and was terminated without cause. The company offered him 8 weeks of pay in lieu of notice, calculated on the basis of the statutory minimum under provincial employment standards legislation, plus an additional 2 weeks as a gesture of goodwill. The offer was conditional on his signing a release that would extinguish any further claims arising from his employment or its termination. The production manager was given 5 business days to accept the offer, with no suggestion that he seek independent legal advice before signing.

The production manager did not sign the release within the deadline. Instead, he retained employment counsel, who sent a demand letter asserting that the offer was grossly inadequate given his length of service, age at termination (then 52), and the specialized nature of his role in a niche manufacturing sector. The demand letter also alleged that the proposed restructuring itself had constituted constructive dismissal before the formal termination occurred. The company's response denied any wrongdoing and maintained that the severance offer was reasonable. The dispute escalated to litigation, requiring the company to defend its termination process, justify its notice calculation, and respond to claims for damages that extended well beyond the initial offer.

Damages in Wrongful Dismissal: What the Employee Can Recover

When an employer terminates an employee without providing adequate notice or compensation in lieu of notice, the law does not simply require that the employer say sorry and move on. The entire framework of wrongful dismissal remedies exists to place the employee in the financial position they would have occupied had the employer honoured its obligations. This means that the employee can recover various forms of compensation, and the employer faces financial exposure that extends well beyond simply paying out a few weeks of salary. Understanding what an employee can recover in a wrongful dismissal claim is essential for any business owner, sole proprietor, or non-profit operator, because this knowledge shapes how you approach terminations, how you structure severance offers, and how you assess the true cost of ending an employment relationship.

The foundation of damages in wrongful dismissal rests on a straightforward principle drawn from contract law. Employment is fundamentally a contractual relationship, and when an employer breaches that contract by terminating without adequate notice or pay in lieu, the employee is entitled to damages that flow naturally from that breach. In common law provinces such as British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and most other provinces outside Quebec, courts apply principles derived from centuries of contract jurisprudence to determine what compensation is appropriate. Quebec operates under the Civil Code of Quebec, which as of the date of authorship governs employment relationships through its own framework of contractual obligations, but the underlying concept remains similar: when one party breaches a contract, the other party is entitled to compensation that addresses the harm caused by that breach.

That’s the free preview

You’ve reached the end of what’s open to read. The rest of this lesson is part of a $249 course — purchasing unlocks it, or sign in if you already have access.