View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 15evidence of acrimony between the plaintiff and his superiors. It was also noted that the plaintiffwas prepared to return to work if his wife was guaranteed certain working conditions whichdemonstrated that the refusal to return to work was not objectively reasonable.[72] The Bank submits that Mr. Chandran’s compensation under both positions would be thesame for fourteen months, which is the time it actually took Mr. Chandran to find alternateemployment. Further, the Bank was prepared to “manage the message” to the employeesinternally in a way that would have reflected positively on Mr. Chandran. This would haveallowed Mr. Chandran to continue to work while maintaining his dignity and reputation.[73] The Bank also repeats the same arguments made with respect to the lack of loss ofprestige with either position.[74] It is argued that the analysis is contextual, and requires consideration of the followingfactors:(a) Is the salary offered the same?(b) Are the working conditions substantially different?(c) Is the work demeaning?(d) What is the history and nature of the employment?(e) Are the personal relationships involved acrimonious?(f) Is a similar position available in the marketplace?(g) Was the offer of re-employment made before or after the employee left?(h) Has the employee commenced litigation?2011 ONSC 777 (CanLII)[75] The Bank submits that Mr. Chandran would not have been subjected to “an atmosphereof hostility, embarrassment or humiliation” had he accepted either the Manager of NationalAccounts or Manager of Business Development/Special Projects position.[76] Mr. Chandran argues that the discipline imposed on him by the Bank destroyed any trusthe had in his employer such that it rendered the employment relationship incapable ofcontinuing. He further argued that a demotion to either position would have been humiliating asthe demotions were clearly the result of the Bank’s finding of his guilt of very seriousmisconduct.[77] The Bank submits its argument on the basis of the analysis referred to above andexamines each of the criteria set out. It argues as follows:(a) Mr. Chandran’s compensation would have been maintained[78] It took Mr. Chandran fourteen months to get alternate employment. In both positions, hissalary would not have changed and his grade would have remained at level 7.