View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 12[57] The Bank submits throughout that unless there is evidence of improper motive, it had theright to transfer Mr. Chandran to this position.[58] The Bank relies on the case of Reber v. Lloyds Bank International Canada, [1985] B.C.J.No. 2341 (C.A.). In that case, the British Columbia Court of Appeal held that any transfer whichinvolves a loss of prestige that constitutes demotion is not necessarily a breach which goes to theroot of the employment contract. The Court found that the demotion at issue was of a limitednature and that the move was actually, in substance, a lateral move. There was no repudiation bythe employer which entitled the plaintiff to treat the contract as at an end. The Bank reliesfurther on the Dykes case referred to above. In that case, the employee was transferred as a resultof complaints that had been made by other employees. The Court stated at paragraph 17 that:“the law seems to suggest the answer lies in the facts of each case. As mentionedearlier, the complaints presented to the employer from the employees supervisedby the plaintiff were never challenged. There is no doubt that the employees didcomplain and although the plaintiff denied the complaints, the fact that they weremade at all is in my opinion, a valid reason to move the plaintiff. The defendantchose to take advantage of the plaintiff’s stress and laterally move him within themanagement level of Human Resources”.2011 ONSC 777 (CanLII)[59] This case, in my opinion, is not applicable to the facts of Mr. Chandran’s case. Atparagraph 27 of the decision, the Court held:“The stimulus for the move was to remove the plaintiff from a position that had asupervisory role over three employees because of the apparent friction betweenthem and the plaintiff. With there being no evidential challenge to thecomplaints, the Vice-President as indicated above had in my view sufficientreason to remove the supervisory function from the plaintiff. The defendant didnot purport to dismiss the plaintiff resulting from these complaints, instead itdecided to utilize his skills, strengths and experience in another area of the HumanResources Department.” [emphasis added][60] In Dykes the court found that the move was lateral and not a demotion. That is not thecase here. Mr. Chandran was not given the opportunity to defend himself against theallegations but was found by the Bank to have been guilty of the allegations made against him.He had no opportunity to present a possible “evidential challenge to the complaint”, as wasreferred to in the Dykes case. Further, Mr. Chandran was subject to a serious disciplinary finalwarning with respect to behaviour which was found by the Bank to be in breach of two of itsmajor policies. If the Bank concluded that he was guilty of any further behaviour of the typehe had already been found guilty of, he would be terminated from employment.[61] The jurisprudence relied on by the Bank deals with situations where the changes made toemployment terms are minimal and do not involve disciplinary action. The issuing of the serious