In Farkas v. Island Lake Resort Group (2003) Inc., 2022 BCSC 1282, the plaintiff was the former executive chef for the defendant, Island Lake Resort Group., which owned a remote mountainside backcountry ski lodge with a fine-dining restaurant near Fernie, B.C. The plaintiff claimed he had been constructively dismissed.  Following a summary trial, the Court found for the defendant.

 

The defendant terminated the Plaintiff’s wife’s employment, the workplace became toxic for him.  As a result of his feelings, he took a medical leave of absence beginning February 6, 2020.

 

On March 16, 2020, the plaintiff met with the owners to discuss his return to work. At the meeting, he was told stated that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Lodge was in the process of winding down operations, and it would be closing on March 18, 2020, but that he would be put on the payroll.  But he could not return to the Lodge temporarily.  By March 17, 2020, all guests and staff, except for the essential staff had left the Lodge due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 17, the plaintiff met with one of the owners, and she informed him that he could work on three tasks until the kitchen staff meeting scheduled for March 19, 2020.  She did not tell the plaintiff he could never return to the Lodge or that his role was changing.

 

The leading authority in respect of whether an employee has been constructively dismissed is Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission2015 SCC 10.   The case sets out a two-step test.  The Court noted:  on both the second step of the first branch and on the second branch, the question is whether, given the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in the employee’s situation would have concluded that the employer’s conduct evinced an intention to no longer be bound by the employment contract (para. 17).  In the circumstances, the temporary demand not to return the Lodge and instructions that he did not communicate with his staff did not support constructive dismissal.

 

The Court concluded that the plaintiff was precipitous in resigning without allowing time to determine how the changes might affect his responsibilities.