William Williamson v. Brandt Tractor Inc., 2025 ONSC 2571 (CanLII)
Background
In William Williamson v. Brandt Tractor Inc., 2025 ONSC 2571, the plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal against his former employer having been terminated for cause. On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part and damages awarded to the plaintiff were reduced by $32,881.43.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice Decision
At the time of his termination, the plaintiff was 56 years old and had been an employee of the defendant for 18 years. Over the course of his employment as a salesperson, the plaintiff had been disciplined several times for conduct ranging from crashing a company truck to his lack of professionalism dealing with customers. In response to a customer complaint the defendant received about the plaintiff, which alleged that the plaintiff had mismanaged a deal, the plaintiff was terminated.
The court held that the defendant did not prove that the plaintiff’s conduct amounted to just cause. The defendant had relied on the cumulative misconduct principle such that the alleged incident with the customer tipped the scale in favour of termination for cause. However, the court found that the evidence from the customer was entirely hearsay and was not a disciplinary offence. Having found that the plaintiff was entitled to reasonable notice at common law, the court awarded the plaintiff a notice period of 17 months.
Following his termination, the plaintiff left the sales industry due to stress. He accepted a lesser pay grade and began a job driving vehicle parts. The defendant argued that by doing so, the plaintiff had failed to mitigate his damages. The court disagreed and found that “the evidence was thin on this point, and it is the defendant’s burden to establish” (at para 22). The court further held that because the plaintiff could only find a lower-paying, and ranking position, his income was not deductible from his damages for wrongful dismissal.
In addition to damages for wrongful dismissal, the plaintiff had claimed punitive damages on account of the defendant’s failure to provide him with his statutory minimums under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the ESA). The court accepted the plaintiff’s argument that the breach of the ESA was an independent actionable wrong, but it did not warrant punitive damages. The court noted that “[t]here must be more, such as the egregious conduct requirement described in the case law” (at para 25).
The Appeal
The employer appealed the decision and argued that the trial judge erred in finding that the appellant did not have just cause, in finding that the respondent did not fail to mitigate his damages, and in not deducting the respondent’s earnings from his subsequent employment from the award of damages for wrongful dismissal.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not err in concluding that the appellant did not have just cause to terminate the respondent and that the respondent did not fail to mitigate his damages. On the first ground of appeal, the Court of Appeal held that without admissible evidence from the customer on the record, the appellant did not establish a culminating incident to warrant the respondent’s termination for cause. On the second ground of appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the appellant did not establish that comparable employment was available such that if the respondent had taken reasonable steps, he could have secured a comparable position.
The Court of Appeal did however find that the trial judge erred by not deducting the respondent’s earnings from his subsequent employment over the notice period from the damages award. The Court of Appeal stated “[t]here is no authority for the proposition that earnings that come from an inferior position are not deductible in mitigation” (at para 7). The amount of $32,881.43 was deducted from the damages awarded during the notice period.
Conclusion
The decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Williamson v. Brandt Tractor Inc. reinforces that just cause and failure to mitigate remain high evidentiary burdens for employers to meet. Although income earned by a plaintiff over the course of the relevant notice period can reduce the damages owed, a plaintiff’s decision to accept less remunerative work can make the quantum of any deduction minimal at best.