View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 14Did Mr. Chandran fail to mitigate his damages by refusing to accept one of the two positionsoffered by the Bank?[67] The Bank pleads in the alternative that if a finding of constructive dismissal is made, Mr.Chandran failed to mitigate his damages by refusing to accept one of the two positions offered bythe Bank.[68] Both parties agree that the relevant test is to determine whether it would have beenobjectively reasonable for Mr. Chandran to accept either of the offers of the Bank. It is agreedthat Mr. Chandran is not required to accept a position with the Bank in “an atmosphere ofhostility, embarrassment or humiliation.”[69] The Bank argues that Mr. Chandran should have accepted one of the two offeredpositions while he looked for alternative employment to satisfy his obligations to mitigate hisdamages. It relies on the Supreme Court of Canada case in Evans v. Teamsters, Local 31, 2008SCC 20, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 661. In that case, the Supreme Court of Canada stated at paragraph 30:2011 ONSC 777 (CanLII)“In my view, the foregoing elements all underline the importance of a multifactoredand contextual analysis. The critical element is that an employee “not[be] obliged to mitigate by working in an atmosphere of hostility, embarrassmentor humiliation” (Farquhar, at p. 94), and it is that factor which must be at theforefront of the inquiry into what is reasonable. Thus, although an objectivestandard must be used to evaluate whether a reasonable person in theemployee’s position would have accepted the employer’s offer (Reibl v.Hughes, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880 (S.C.C.)), it is extremely important that the nontangibleelements of the situation – including work atmosphere, stigma andloss of dignity, as well as nature and conditions of employment, the tangibleelements – be included in the evaluation. [emphasis added][70] The court further held at paragraph 33 that:“In sum, I believe that although both constructively dismissed and wrongfullydismissed employees may be required to mitigate their damages by returning towork for the dismissing employer, they are only required to do so where theconditions discussed in para. 30 above are met and the factors mentioned in Coxare considered. This kind of mitigation requires “a situation of mutualunderstanding and respect, and a situation where neither the employer nor theemployee is likely to put the other’s interests in jeopardy” (Farquhar, at p. 95).Further, the reasonableness of an employee’s decision not to mitigate will beassessed on an objective standard.” [emphasis added][71] In the Evans case, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the union had demonstrated tothe plaintiff that they wanted him to continue to work with the organization. It found thatalthough the fears expressed by the plaintiff may have been subjectively justified, there was no