Nobody Cares About Your (Unilateral) Life Plans: Lessons From The Great White North

A recent decision of the Yukon Court of Appeal provides some valuable commentary about the role (or lack thereof) played by one's personal plans in determining the appropriate length of notice for a dismissed employee.

Background

On April 3, 2013, Lesley Cabott commenced employment with Urban Systems Ltd. and was tasked with working out of the company's new Whitehorse office. Urban Systems hired Ms. Cabott - a resident of Whitehorse with extensive work experience in the Yukon's private and public sectors - because it wished to expand its business in the North.

Ms. Cabott accepted employment with Urban Systems because she felt that the opportunities for work and advancement were better than with her previous employer, with which she had become disenchanted. She also apparently accepted the job because she viewed working with Urban Systems as an opportunity to trade in her parka for a rain jacket and move to Vancouver, where she wanted to move and eventually retire.

The employment relationship unfortunately did not proceed as the parties had hoped and, within 13 months, Ms. Cabott's employment was terminated.

She was provided with 3.5 months of pay in lieu of notice.

Yukon Supreme Court

The Yukon Supreme Court held that despite Ms. Cabott's short period of employment, the severance provided by Urban Systems was deficient. 1

In arriving at this conclusion, the Court focused on a number of factors, including Ms. Cabott's age and specialized skills. In addition, consideration was given to the "attraction of eventual transition of work with the defendant to Vancouver until retirement", which the Court found to be a factor that enticed Ms. Cabott to take up employment with Urban Systems in the first place and one which warranted an extension of the notice period. Given these considerations, the Court concluded that the appropriate period of notice in the case was six months.

Yukon Court of Appeal

Urban Systems appealed the decision of the Supreme Court, and took the position that the damages award was excessive. A unanimous Yukon Court of Appeal agreed.2

In overturning the original damages award and after acknowledging Ms. Cabott's skills and responsibilities, the Court of Appeal noted that there was no evidence to support the suggestion that her age warranted an extension of the notice period and, most significantly, found that the Court erred in referring to Ms. Cabott's expectation of a possible transition of work and retirement in Vancouver as...