View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 10[42] The Bank emphasizes that Mr. Chandran was not told that he could not be promoted inthe future. Mr. Flowers testified that if Mr. Chandran accepted the Manager of BusinessDevelopment position and was successful at it, he would eventually require assistance and wouldagain manage a team. Furthermore, Mr. Flowers believed that if Mr. Chandran was successful inthis position he would have been in a good position to replace him as Vice President. It is alsosubmitted that had Mr. Chandran taken the Manager of National Accounts position he couldhave advanced to Senior Manager of National Accounts, or other senior level (and nonsupervisory)executive positions in the commercial banking business. The Bank argues thatalthough each of the proposed transfers did not guarantee positive future advancement, neitheramounted to a fundamental breach of the employment contract.[43] The Bank also submits that having supervisory duties was not an essential term of Mr.Chandran’s employment. It relies on Mr. Chandran’s discovery evidence that sales and businessdevelopment were his most important roles as Senior Manager.2011 ONSC 777 (CanLII)[44] Furthermore, the Bank notes that during his employment Mr. Chandran moved fromsupervisory positions to non-supervisory positions.[45] Mr. Flowers testified that while supervisory duties can be an indicator of status, the moreimportant indicators of status at the Bank are pay and whether the position is a seniormanagement position. Mr. Flowers testified that there is no greater compensation at the Bank forsupervisory duties.[46] The Bank submits that its proposal to transfer Mr. Chandran to another seniormanagement position without supervisory duties is consistent with his movements to variouspositions in the past and therefore the loss of supervisory duties cannot amount to a fundamentalchange to the terms of employment.[47] Reference is made to the Dykes v. Saan Stores Ltd., [2002] M.J. No. 161 (Q.B.) case,wherein the court refused to find constructive dismissal where an employer transferred anemployee in response to complaints from direct reports. In Dykes the plaintiff was the Managerof Human Resources and directly supervised three employees. The employer’s Vice-Presidentreceived complaints from staff that were critical of the plaintiff’s “high-handed manner and hisattitude towards them.” In Dykes the employer had already decided to move the plaintiff beforeconfronting him with the allegations. When the employer met with the plaintiff “the complaintswere never challenged although denied by the plaintiff”, and the employer then offered theplaintiff a transfer to a newly created senior managerial but non-supervisory position at the samelevel, salary and benefits. The court concluded that there was no constructive dismissal.[48] The difference in the present case is that the positions offered to Mr. Chandran were notat the same level of salary and benefits, and the Bank issued the disciplinary letter.[49] The Bank submits that there is no reason to doubt Ms. Kenney’s testimony that nine staffcomplained about Mr. Chandran’s conduct without any prompting from Ms. Kenney. Given the