Blomme v Princeton Standard Pellet Corporation, 2023 BCSC 652 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jwtsg>
The plaintiff was 67 years old. She never graduated from high school. After working for various employers, she joined the defendant, where she worked for over 20 years before her employment ended. She worked herself up to the position as one of three plant supervisors. There was no written employment contract. Princeton manufactures wood pellets for home heating and animal bedding from waste wood fibres. The plaintiff was laid off in connection with business slowdown due to the Covid pandemic on April 2, 2020. Between then and August 12, 2020, there were discussions with respect her potential return to work. On October 1, 2020, plaintiff counsel sent a letter to the employer, stating that she had been terminated by operation of law, the Employment standards Act, because her layoff had exceeded the temporary layoff permitted by the Act. The date of the deemed termination, August 30, was her termination date. The court found that reasonable notice was between 15 and 16 months. However, after her counsel’s letter the employer made offers for her to return to work.
The court considered whether it would have been reasonable for her to return to work for the employer:
[95] Reframed for the circumstances in this case, the issue is whether Ms. Blomme, who was terminated by operation of statute after a temporary layoff that she initially agreed to, and who by October 1, 2020, took the position that she had been terminated, was required to mitigate by returning to work for Princeton in the same job as she had before the termination. Ms. Blomme’s circumstances are far-removed from a termination based on concerns about her performance. … it was not a decision made with the intent to humiliate Ms. Blomme.
[96] In this case, Ms. Blomme was not singled out for layoff. She was one of a number of management and union staff at Princeton who were laid off as a result of the unprecedent global pandemic faced by many employers.
The court concluded:
[112] …. in the circumstances of this case, a reasonable person in Ms. Blomme’s position would have accepted Princeton’s offer. Although the specific terms of her re-employment were not set out in Mr. White’s October 8, 23, and 26 emails, it was incumbent on her to at least explore the option of returning to work. Ms. Blomme was being asked to return to the same position, salary, and benefits, which had never been cut off: …. There was no evidence to support that she would be returning to an atmosphere of hostility, embarrassment, or humiliation. ….
The court dismissed her claim.