In a recent case from the BC Supreme Court, James v. The Hollypark Organization Inc., 2016 BCSC 495 (CanLII), the employee alleged that she was employed under an oral one-year term contract for the opening of a new hotel, a franchisee of the Marriott hotel chain, and the first year of operations. She was terminated before the one year was up.
The employee has the burden to prove the term of contract. Madam Justice Burke set out the relevant law:
“[14] In determining whether an employment contract was for a fixed term or an ongoing period, Betton J., in Alsip v. Top Rollshutters Inc. doing business as Talius, 2015 BCSC 1166 (CanLII) at para. 40, cited with approval the summary of considerations set out in Canelas v. People First of Canada, 2009 MBQB 67 (CanLII). That summary is helpful and indicates:
- A fixed-term contract can be in writing or orally made or partly in writing and partly oral. The term may be fixed to a certain time or certain event. However, to be fixed, the intention of the parties must be clearly expressed or necessarily implied;
- The parties must be ad idem as to the term. If only one of the parties inferred the term was fixed, that is insufficient; and
- Whether the parties’ agreement was oral or partly written and partly oral – the evidence of the parties’ oral discussions should allow the reasonable observer to conclude the individual at issue was hired for a fixed term.”
The Court noted that there is a greater flexibility in the admissibility of evidence to prove the terms of the contract. There was little in the way of documents to prove the terms of the contract. Burke J. turned to the surrounding circumstances, including, in particular, the fact that the franchise agreement required a Marriott trained manager, something the principals lacked. The employee was a former manager with Marriott and trained in its brand. The Court found: “Marriott had determined Hollypark was not qualified to operate the Hotel without additional training and support. This …confirms Ms. James’ testimony that Mr. Dhillon was advised Marriott had determined Hollypark was not qualified to operate the hotel.”
In the circumstances, the Court found that there was a one-year contract and awarded damages for the unexpired portion of the contract, in this case a little shy of $54,000.