Running head: Case Law 1

Assignment 1: Case Law

Group 6
HRPD 701
Centennial College
Professor James McVittie
June 7, 2018
Case Law 2

Ramandeep Kaur (301001820)

Introduction

The plaintiff, Raj Johar, was a senior repair technician for 10 years at Best Buy’s

Distribution Centre, Brampton, who was wrongfully dismissed for a cause on 23rd December 2014,

after putting multiple allegations on him. The case concentrates on the allegations on plaintiff by

the defendant, Best Buy, says the allegations are true and reasonable for action and the plaintiff

defends himself.

Facts

In this case many facts are involved but the key facts are main concern of case. In any case

all doubts should be cleared by both sides. But in case cross- examined becomes a fact. Plaintiff

cross- examined on the defendant’s affidavit but when it was the turn of defendant they decided

not to cross examined the Plaintiff.

For the reason that follow, the motion for summary judgment is granted. None of the two

grounds justifying termination for cause - conflict of interest or dishonesty - has been established

on the evidence before plaintiff. The defendant was not able to show that the plaintiff was running

an in-home repair service in competition with the defendant or reselling purchased products for a

profit. The defendant was not able to establish the allegation of dishonesty. The plaintiff was

wrongfully dismissed. He was entitled to damages in lieu of notice.

Next fact is age the length the reasonable notice period of notice is also a fact. Plaintiff is

working in this company from last 10 years. So, according to the Employment Standards Act, 2000

in Ontario it is necessary to give reasonable notice near about 23 months earlier. Next the age is

also a factor. The age of Plaintiff is 46 so it is necessary to give him this letter at proper time
Case Law 3

because it is necessary for him to find a new job matching his standards. Within the period of 11

months it is difficult for him to go and find a job.

Case Law 4

Esha Arora (300989500)

Issues

This case, Johar V. Best Buy has been filled by Mr. Rajnish Johar, plaintiff

against Best Buy on the grounds of wrongful dismissal. The company fired Mr. Johar

after they found at that he had been viewing the company’s auction website. The

company has further put the following allegations on him for firing him. The

company asserts that Mr. Johar has put his personal interest before the company.

They found out that Mr. Johar had purchase a large volume of products and some

234 cell phones, which he has been re selling for profits.

After further investigation it is found that Mr. Johar has placed there adds in

a community newspaper. Furthermore, Best Buy claims that Mr. Johar has been

operating an in-home repair service in competition with Best Buy which became the

reason for conflict of interest and cause for termination. In the end Best Buy

concluded by saying that even during the investigation Mr. Johar had been dishonest

in giving the answers to the question asked to form him.

In response to his Mr. Johar says that the purchases have been made for his

extended family in India and he has not been selling these for profits. He further says

no evidence has been found that he has been running an in-house service in

competition with Best. In his defense for the adds placed in the community

newspaper he denied placing to ads and instead said that someone was trying to plot

him into this. In his opinion the company should have given him warning rather than

dismissing him. Conflict of interest was not justified for a dismissal more over the

reason of “reselling the gadgets for profit was also not mentioned in the dismissal.
Case Law 5

The plaintiff should have been given a reasonable range on the facts herein is

probably 10 to 11 months and all considering Mr. Johar’s age and the fact that he

was dismissed without a notice.

As Mr. Johar’s company fired him without giving out any prior notice hence

he filed a case of Wrongful Dismissal. Both sides agree that if damages are awarded

in lieu of notice, the following should be given to Mr. Johar: (i) base salary; (ii)

average bonus; (iii) average overtime; and (iv) cost of benefits.

Law (Specific statues)

Wrongful Dismissal; an employer by law can terminate employees from

their job with an advanced warning or payment. An employee can claim to have been

wrongfully dismissed when an employer terminates the employee without notice

of termination or a fair payment. This comes under the statues Employment

Standards Act.

Employers must provide terminated employees the same salary during the

notice period, plus any incentive compensation and benefits.

A similar case of wrongful dismissal goes as follows-

Lee v. Choice Bank, 2018 ONSC 3225 (CanLII)

This case shows how another employee Mary Lee (Plaintiff) was

wrongfully dismissed eight days before her contract was about to end. The contracted

signed her for three year and was supposed to get renewed for a year, after three

years. Whereas she got a call from the Employer eight days before completing 3
Case Law 6

years that they don’t require her services anymore. Her wrongful dismissal stated that

the company is liable to pay her for the next one year and eight months.

In the above-mentioned case, the employer had terminated or dismissed Lee

from her job before giving her prior notice. M.s Lee’s lawyer in his submission stated

that he the company has to compensate her for 8 days and rest of the 52 weeks as she

had been terminated without a cause.

Case Law 7

Gagandeep Kaur (300998943)

Role of HRM

Termination of employment refers to the ending of employment in a particular

organization. It is mandatory to follow proper termination rules and policies while terminating

the employees in an organization. There are various areas which are affected by this case

like, the company face risk regarding reputation, leakage of secrets as well as loss of property

even in terms of money and time after termination of an employee who sued after that. (Jacoby,

2015). Moreover, there is a risk of loss of productivity as an employee fired by the organization

who worked there for many years, is more skilled and expert in their work.

Rehiring is needed after the termination. Therefore, it takes time and money to hire new

person on that post (Bhatia, 2009). Apart from this, the termination de-motivates the employees

who worked there as a team.

The HRM is playing a very important role in termination process. The first thing what

HRM has to maintain during the termination is the employee's dignity. Just because organization

is terminating an employee doesn't mean they are a bad human being," says Schrameck. It should

be handled professionally and with respect."

During termination, this is HRM’s responsibility to give advanced warning to the

employee in form of written notice or Pay in lieu of notice. Employees receiving pay in lieu of

notice as salary continuance. Moreover, workplace policies and procedures provide the

organization a proper s structure. In an employee handbook, the Working hours, pay information,

safety measures, benefits and performance expectations, statement about the company's zero-
Case Law 8

tolerance for discrimination or harassment should me mentioned so that the employees feel like

valued contributors (Mayhew, n.d.).

HR’s Involvement is very important and common to shape the discussions and take the

actions. Companies have a well-defined process for performance reviews and employee

termination. The HR department should interpret employment and Labour laws to ensure the

employer does not intentionally or unintentionally violate the worker's rights. HR is responsible

for explaining to an employee the reason for the termination. During an employee termination,

human resources staff must accurately calculate and issue an employee's final pay check (Scott,

n.d.).
Case Law 9

M. Salman Ansari (300999897)

Analysis

Termination on the basis of conflict of interest not justified

The termination letter given to the plaintiff (Raj Johar) included the conflict of interest referred

to the advertisements in the community newspaper which stated that the plaintiff was trying to be in

the competition with the defendant (Best Buy) by providing the in-home repair services. After

investigation, it was confirmed that the advertisements places by plaintiff were from the year 2007, and

no in-home repairs were ever made.

The defendant did not do the proper investigation which led to obtain wrong information about

the advertisement. The defendant assumed that those advertisements in the newspaper were latest

because the newspaper agency ran those ads in 2014 in their advertisement section as a sample in the

effort to promote it. When the plaintiff ran those ads in the newspaper, the defendant’s repair services

were limited to in-warranty repairs. Hence, the plaintiff couldn’t be in the competition with his

employer.

The second conflict of interest was referred to the selling of the products for a profit bought on

the auction sites of the company. However, the ‘reselling of products’ was not mentioned in the letter of

termination. The defendant had no evidence to support the allegation that plaintiff was reselling the

products. In the meetings, the plaintiff was questioned about the large number of products bought by

him from which he replied, ‘he had an extended family in India, so he buys” and plus he also mentioned

in the affidavit about his shopping disorder that requires medications. The defendant couldn’t prove

that the plaintiff was found guilty.

Termination on the basis of dishonesty not justified

 Case Law
10

The defendant stated that the plaintiff wasn’t being honest and could not provide truthful

answers in the investigation when questioned about making additional in-home repair services and

reselling the products for profit. The plaintiff was honest and provided the truthful answers as he really

did not know about the newspaper advertisements that were run in 2014 which turned out to be true as

those ads were from 2007.

As for another allegation, “reselling for profit”, the plaintiff refused doing that and his evidence

remains uncontroverted. He did not disclose about his shopping disorder at the meeting which is

understood as many people don’t like to disclose their medical problems.

The defendant failed to prove the plaintiff dishonest which questions the dismissal action of the

employers and proves that the employer was wrongfully dismissed.

Reasonable notice period

The case law includes the ‘Bardal factors’. The plaintiff mentioned his 10 years of service, his

position status in the company, his age (46 when terminated) and the difficulties facing in getting

another job after being fired with a cause. He also mentions that the legit notice period is 12 to 14

months. The defendant argued that 6 to 8 months are more reasonable. There was no mitigation issue

as the plaintiff made efforts to get another job, being unsuccessful after applying in more than 80

positions. He now works as a real estate agent but did not earn anything to date of his affidavit.

Both the sides agreed that if damages are being taken care in lieu of notice, the important

components are: base salary, average bonus, average overtime, and cost of benefits. However, both

disagreed on overtime as the defendant said to use 5 year of average, and the plaintiff wants it to be a 3

year of average. The overall monthly entitlement can be calculated as follows: salary $4617.60; bonus
 Case Law
11

$68.91; overtime $232.55; and benefits $153.33, for a monthly total of $5072.39. The amount of

$55,796.29 was payable to the plaintiff for the damages.

Wrongful dismissal is a situation where the employer terminates the employee without cause

but fails to provide sufficient noticeable period or terminating for a cause without any dismissal in

circumstances when the employer did not have just cause to dismiss the employee (Philip., n.d.). It

should be avoided at any cost as not only it is illegal but even a bad practice. The court rested the result

in the favor of the plaintiff which I think was correct because the plaintiff proved all the allegations on

him were not true and the defendant failed to prove him guilty.

The Best Buy would have avoided doing incomplete investigation and blaming the employee

without any hard evidence. If the investigation was being done better in a systematic way, this law suit

wouldn’t be there in the first place.

 Case Law
12

Work cited

Lee v. Choice Bank, 2018 ONSC 3225 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/hs6kn>, retrieved on 2018-

06-08

Louise Kursmark (n.d.). HR's Role in Employee Termination. Retrieved from

https://hiring.monster.com/hr/hr-best-practices/workforce-management/employee-

performance-management/employee-termination.aspx

Mayhew (n.d.). Key Human Resource Management Policies & Procedures. Retrieved from

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/key-human-resource-management-policies-procedures-

60802.html

Philip R (n.d.), Wrongful Dismissals in Ontario, Retrieved June 2, 2018 from

http://employmentlaw101.ca/01-wrongful-dismissal/
 Case Law
13

Appendix

Ramandeep Kaur (301001820) - (a) Introduction

(b) Facts: What are the key facts in the dispute?

Esha Arora (300989500) - (c) Issues: What are the key issues at stake in this dispute?

(d) Law: What specific statutes (if any) and other cases that deal

with the issues you have identified?

Gagandeep Kaur (300998943) - HRM: What areas of HRM and/ or HR policies are relevant or

impacted by this case? What are the takeaways for HRM?

M. Salman Ansari (300999897) - Analysis: Provide your analysis of the case. At a minimum

your analysis should include:

(i) A brief review of the main points in the case.

(ii) Why you think this topic and the decision are important?

(iii) Whether you agree or disagree with the decision and your

reasons for this position?

(iv) Your own conclusion along with any substantiating

reasons.

(v) Your assessment of how the problem should have been

addressed to avoid the possibility of litigation.

(vi) Anything else you deem relevant.

 Case Law
14

The original case worked on:

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2016/2016onsc5287/2016onsc5287.html?searchUrlHash=

AAAAAQASV3JvbmdmdWwgZGlzbWlzc2FsAAAAAAE&resultIndex=45#

The case used as referral:

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2018/2018onsc3225/2018onsc3225.html?searchUrlHash=

AAAAAQAiTGVlIHYuIENob2ljZSBCYW5rLCAyMDE4IE9OU0MgMzIyNQAAAAAB&resu

ltIndex=1