Siskinds The Law Firm's Logo
Share | Find us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter See us on Youtube

Employees Not Required to Stay to Mitigate Damages After Being Constructively Dismissed

In the recent decision of Chandran v. National Bank of Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal provided clarity on whether an employee is required to stay with his/her employer in order to mitigate his/her damages after being constructively dismissed.
The Court of Appeal ruled that where the workplace might be perceived as humiliating or embarrassing, employees are not required to stay with their employers to mitigate their damages.
Chandran was a senior manager at the National Bank and had eleven employees reporting directly to him. The bank conducted a survey asking employees about Chandran’s behaviour. The results of the survey indicated that Chandran was at times a bully and that he embarrassed people. As a result of these findings, the bank demoted Chandran from his supervisory position and offered him two different positions, each of which provided Chandran with a similar rate of pay and level within the organization, but did not include any supervisory responsibilities. 
Chandran successfully claimed that he had been constructively dismissed. The bank did not appeal the finding that it had constructively dismissed Chandran, but did argue that he was still required to accept one of the two positions that the bank had offered him in order to mitigate his damages. The Court of Appeal rejected the bank’s argument on the basis that, given the serious discipline that had been imposed (i.e. being stripped of supervisory duties and being offered lesser positions), the workplace would have been embarrassing and humiliating for Chandran. 
So, what does this mean for employers? First, when conducting workplace investigations (or in this case, a survey), employers must be able to demonstrate due diligence and good faith in their investigation efforts. For example, employees that are being investigated ought to be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations and, depending on the findings, employers ought to provide the employee with a warning and an opportunity to improve as opposed to taking some more serious form of discipline.    Second, when imposing disciplinary measures, employers must be cognizant that a change of position may create an atmosphere of hostility, embarrassment or humiliation, such that the employee will not be required to accept the position in order to mitigate his/her damages.  
Posted: April 11, 2012 by Andrea Bezaire | with 4 comments | Share This Link

zip line brake
Persons like chandhran are the real threat to a financial business institution. He has to dismiss from the bank. Why these kind of stupid persons are encouraged by the company? The bank must take quick actions against him to regain the business.
12/29/2014 4:37:15 AM
Thanks for the insight. It brings light into the dark!
10/9/2014 3:41:45 AM

converse pas cher
Thanks for the insight. It brings light into the dark!
10/9/2014 3:25:32 AM

That's going to make things a lot esaeir from here on out.
7/8/2012 7:20:04 AM

Leave comment

 Security code

Mary Lou Brady

linkedin linkEmail Mary Lou
Partner and avid book club member.  Truth be told, very little of her book club’s discussion is ever about the book!

Beth Traynor

linkedin linkEmail Beth
After several years of working towards a career in midwifery,  realized she had been focusing on the wrong kind of “labour”.

Jennifer Costin

linkedin linkEmail Jennifer
While she likes to think she was recruited to the Labour and Employment Group for her experience and knowledge, the truth is, they needed a golfer.

Chris Sinal

linkedin linkEmail Chris
A former health club manager and wearer of suspenders, Chris brings a 'strong' sense of fashion to the team.

Browse through past ARTICLE ARCHIVES