At Singleton Reynolds, our people are what makes us great. We come together every day with the common goal of providing exceptional legal services and ensuring we go above and beyond for each and every client.
The range of backgrounds of the partners, counsel, associates and staff of Singleton Reynolds enables us to offer a broad range of services.
Singleton Reynolds’ lawyers spend a significant amount of time researching and thinking about how industry or legislative changes could affect your business.
Singleton Urquhart Reynolds Vogel LLP is recognized as a leader in construction and infrastructure, insurance, commercial litigation, real estate and business law.
Singleton Reynolds has offices to serve you in Vancouver and Toronto.
Singleton Reynolds believes in community. Our team members are teaching at Canadian universities and abroad, lecturing the next generation of lawyers.
How was Singleton Reynolds first established? Find out more here.
Recognizing the leadership that contributes to the company successes.
Singleton Reynolds prides itself in being a leader in corporate social responsibility. We encourage diversity, charity, mentorship, civic dedication and neighbourhood support.
Singleton Reynolds strives to understand the balance between your career and your personal goals and encourages our legal and operations staff in the pursuit of their interests outside of the firm.
We are always on the lookout for talented professionals to contribute to our team. Singleton Reynolds offers a professional and challenging work environment, with a competitive compensation and benefits package.
Our goal is to develop strong lawyers from student right through to partner. Mentoring and training start when you are a student and continue throughout your practice.
In 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada offered some guiding principles for assessing and identifying whether an employer has discharged its duty of good faith upon termination of an employee. An employer fails to discharge its duty of good faith where, during the course of dismissal, the employer fails to be open, reasonable, truthful, and forthright with the employee. An employer fails to discharge its duty where it acts in an unfair manner by being misleading or unduly insensitive.
Since 2008, the case law has assisted with refining the above principles. Some important takeaways arise for employers and employees upon application in recent employment litigation.
Importantly, and foundational to the analysis, unfairness in the manner of dismissal is not enough in and of itself to warrant an award of bad faith damages. Recently, this was reiterated in the Court of Appeal decision Cottrill v. Utopia Day Spas and Salons Ltd. (“Cottrill”). The Court of Appeal reversed the trial level decision because the Court found that the employee did not establish that she suffered more than the normal upset and hurt feelings that are to be expected upon dismissal without cause.
To establish bad faith, an employee has the burden of proving that the employer engaged in unfair conduct upon dismissal and that the employee suffered serious, prolonged mental distress. This mental distress need not be proven by expert evidence, but the evidence adduced at trial must establish distress that goes farther than the regular distress upon termination that can be expected.
In Cottrill, there was no evidence from the employee or the employee’s family members, friends, or third parties with respect to the alleged mental distress the plaintiff experienced upon termination. The only evidence adduced was that the employee cried at two meetings leading up to and including the termination. This was not sufficient to establish compensable bad faith damages.
Recent case law also establishes that a misrepresentation alone is not in and of itself enough to establish bad faith. An employer acts in bad faith where the misrepresentation leads to reputational consequences, and/or has or could have the capacity to impact that employee’s ability to find comparable work.
In Davies v Canada Shineray Suppliers Group Inc. (“Davies”), for example, the court found that the employer acted in bad faith by abruptly terminating the employment and damaging the employee’s reputation. The employer sent a memo to the parents of the subject daycare to which the employee was a daycare manager. The memo falsely stated that the employee had resigned and had fraudulently taken the daycare’s equipment with her.
The employee was awarded $30,000 for bad faith damages. The court found that this award was appropriate because, like in a similar case, the allegations attacked the plaintiff’s social reputation and own sense of worth. The court found that the employee was emotionally devastated by the experience and the evidence proved severe mental distress caused by the manner of dismissal.
In Valle Torres v Vancouver Native Health Society, the employee, a social services worker at the Vancouver Native Health Society, was abruptly terminated and escorted out of the office. After termination, the employee was falsely accused of making defamatory statements about his replacement. The employer took the following steps that the court found caused reputational consequences and would directly impact the employee’s ability to find work in the social services community:
This is a clear instance where the manner of termination and associated misrepresentations lead to direct reputational consequences and direct impact on the employee’s ability to find comparable work. In this case, the court awarded $30,000 for bad faith damages.
An important factor mentioned in Valle Torres to justify the finding of bad faith was the litigation strategy invoked by the employer. In Avelin v Aya Lasers Inc. (“Avelin”), the court found that, in line with previous case law, the employer’s conduct in litigating the employee’s claim may be considered as an element in the court’s review of the manner of dismissal.
In Avelin, the court found that the employer, Aya Lasers, was attempting to take advantage of its strong corporate presence in Ontario. Aya Lasers attempted to have the proceeding litigated in Ontario. The court found that this was in specific effort to take advantage of an unemployed plaintiff, resident in British Columbia, who was employed to market the employer’s products in British Columbia. The efforts of the employer to “tak[e] advantage of its superior resources and [the employee’s] economic vulnerability,” combined with the manner of termination itself, led to a finding of $5,000 for bad faith damages.
In conclusion, while no one factor is determinative, and the test for proving bad faith in the manner of dismissal is contextual, the following principles can serve as takeaways for employees and employers alike where there are concerns with the manner of termination:
Published in today’s issue of HR Reporter.
 Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd., 1997 3 SCR 701, paras 94-095, Keays v Honda Canada Inc., 2008 SCC 39, paras 57-59.
 Cottrill v. Utopia Day Spas and Salons Ltd., 2018 BCCA 383, para 18.
 Davies v Canada Shineray Suppliers Group Inc., 2017 BCSC 304, paras 98-100.
 Valle Torres v Vancouver Native Health Society, 2019 BCSC 523, para 93.
 Avelin v Aya Lasers Inc., 2018 BCSC 2313, para 55.
 Supra, para 56-57.
For more information, please contact:
We advise on, and are skilled in, all aspects of employment and labour law, including a wide range of issues which impact the workplace from both the employer and employee perspectives.
Articles | May 21, 2020
Articles | Apr 14, 2020
Articles | Apr 8, 2020
Or call toll-free at 1-877-682-4404
This field is required