In a recent case, Cotter v. Point Grey Golf and Country Club, 2016 BCSC 10, the BCSC in a summary trial dismissed the wrongful dismissal suit by the former Controller of the Golf Club. He had worked there for 16 and 1/2 years and was 53 years old. He was a senior employee who reported to the General Manager and COO.
The Controller became fixated on his interpretation of various statutes in connection with a erroneous property tax filings, which, in his view, created a contingent liability for the Golf Club. Despite the fact that the issue was resolved with the Assessment Authorities, legal opinions, and clear directions on several occasions from the General Manager, he continued to communicate with individuals inside and outside the organization. This went on for some 2 and 1/2 years. Ultimately, the Golf Club terminated his employment for cause. The Controller sued for wrongful dismissal, punitive damages etc. A lengthy trial was scheduled. The Controller represented himself, seeking some $1.8 million in damages.
The Golf Club applied for summary trial. The Controller opposed the application. The Court agreed with the employer. The Court found that the matter was not “extremely” complex. The fact that there were credibility issues was not determinative. The credibility issues could be resolved through the documents submitted by the parties.
Just cause for insubordination is established where “the conduct complained of is such as to show the servant to have disregarded the essential conditions of the contract of service. It is, no doubt, therefore, generally true that wilful disobedience of an order will justify summary dismissal, since wilful disobedience of a lawful and reasonable order shows a disregard – a complete disregard – of a condition essential to the contract of service, namely, the condition that the servant must obey the proper orders of the master” (per Lord Evershed in Laws v. London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers), Ltd.). The BCSC noted: “Accordingly, where the employer has issued directions that are lawful and not dishonest, it will amount to insubordination if those directions are disobeyed.” Citing, Chan v. Ling, 2006 BCSC 1243, the Court: “However, all misconduct must be assessed as to nature and degree within a contextual approach to determine whether it warrants dismissal. The principle from McKinley v. BC Tel, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 161 at para. 57 concerning dishonesty, that each case is to be considered within its own facts and circumstances and each dishonesty assessed as to nature and seriousness so to determine whether it is reconcilable with sustaining the employment relationship, applies equally to insubordination and other acts of misconduct. Conduct that causes an employer to lose trust in an employee in a responsible position may so undermine the relationship as to justify dismissal.” Mr. Cotter’s argument was that his actions were entirely appropriate and indeed part of his ethical duty. His actions were nor reasonable. The Court concluded: “Mr. Cotter’s actions were insubordinate and completely incompatible with an employer-employee relationship. The termination for cause was justified.”