We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
15 January 2019
The decision from the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta in Coffey v Nine Energy Canada Inc (2018 ABQB 898) provides clarity amidst the conflicting jurisprudential landscape regarding whether the assessment of damages for a termination without cause is appropriate for summary judgment.
In Coffey, the plaintiff commenced a claim for wrongful dismissal and applied for summary judgment against his former employer, alleging entitlement to damages for a reasonable notice period and a percentage of revenue. The defendant counterclaimed, alleging that the plaintiff had made disparaging remarks and improperly used confidential information. The master found that summary judgment was inappropriate for the assessment of damages for pay in lieu of reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal. Summary judgment was also unsuitable for the plaintiff's claims for punitive or aggravated damages and the counterclaim. The plaintiff appealed.
The court dismissed the appeal, judging that the assessment of damages for pay in lieu of reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal is outside a master's jurisdiction and beyond the scope of summary judgment as the assessment of reasonable notice requires weighing evidence, the appropriate summary procedure is via summary trial, not summary judgment.
The court acknowledged that the question of the appropriate test for summary judgment in ascertaining whether a claim has merit was presently before the Court of Appeal for determination. However, the court found that it was unnecessary to decide that issue in order to find that it is inappropriate to determine reasonable notice damages by way of summary judgment. The court noted that both Section 9 of the Court of Queen's Bench Act and Section 96 of the Constitution Act 1867, preclude masters from weighing evidence to determine damages. The summary judgment rule must be interpreted within the context of a master's jurisdiction and is not intended to determine the parties' rights; rather, the rule requires an examination of the evidence to find whether there is an issue to be tried. Thus, when evidence must be weighed and contentious issues of fact determined, summary judgment is inappropriate. Instead, the correct procedure is summary trial, regardless of whether the summary judgment application is before a master or a justice.
The court commented that the assessment of damages for reasonable notice is not a mechanical exercise; it involves the weighing of evidence to ascertain the reasonable notice period. The analysis must be conducted on a case-by-case basis as the factual scenarios, and in particular, the distinguishing facts, have a significant impact on the analysis. It is not a matter of simply locating where the pertinent factual scenario falls on a chart of prior decisions and accepting that as determining the matter. To the contrary, the jurisprudence merely establishes general parameters, narrowing the likely findings in which parties can assess their potential exposure.
Determining the damages claimed for lost revenues involves contested facts and is intertwined with the entitlement of reasonable notice damages. As such, the court gave deference to the master's decision that summary judgment was inappropriate in the circumstances. The court also found that the defendant's counterclaim involved a material conflict in evidence, likely requiring viva voce evidence and a trial. The plaintiff confirmed on questioning that he had made statements about the defendant to clients, supporting the counterclaim, and thereby providing a genuine issue of merit requiring a trial.
The court supported the master's finding that an assessment of damages for pay in lieu of reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal is inappropriate for summary judgment, which requires:
Further, such an assessment is outside the scope of the summary judgment rule and masters' jurisdiction. Instead, the summary trial process before a justice is the appropriate process to decide matters such as the one before the court in Coffey.
For further information on this topic please contact Benjamin R Young at Dentons Canada LLP by telephone (+1 604 687 4460) or email (email@example.com). The Dentons Canada LLP website can be accessed at www.dentons.com.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.