View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 16(b)-(e) No demeaning working conditions/no acrimonious relationships[79] The Bank submits that it was prepared to “manage the message” internally in a way thatwould have reflected positively on Mr. Chandran. This would have allowed Mr. Chandran tocontinue to work while maintaining his dignity and reputation.[80] The Bank repeats its submission that in the position of Manager of National Accountsrole, Mr. Chandran would report to Ms. Linda Smart, who was Senior Manager of NationalAccounts. Although this was previously Mr. Chandran’s position, the evidence is that Ms. Smartwas not Mr. Chandran’s “peer”. Ms. Kenney and Mr. Flowers testified that Ms. Smart was alevel 8 employee earning $120,000.00 per year (over $20,000.00 more than Mr. Chandran’ssalary). There is, however, no evidence that Mr. Chandran knew this. As noted above, Ms.Smart did not work in the same unit as Mr. Chandran. It is therefore submitted that it cannot besaid that these working conditions were demeaning.2011 ONSC 777 (CanLII)[81] The Bank refers to the case of Greaves v. OMERS, 15 C.C.E.L. (2d) 94, 129 D.L.R. (4 th )347 (Ont. Ct. J. (Gen.Div.)) wherein the court found there was a duty to accept re-employmentwith the former employer. The plaintiff, Vice-President, Equities and Investment Strategy,reported directly to the Senior Vice-President, and was the highest paid Vice-President with thehighest grade level of any Vice-President. After reorganization, he was required to report toanother Vice-President who had been promoted from a junior level. The Court concluded that heshould have stayed in his position to mitigate. The employer no longer wanted him in aleadership role because of his “unsuitable” personality traits (being very strong willed, too directin showing his disagreement and displeasure, and his inflexibility). Despite this negative viewfrom the employer, the court concluded that he “could have continued to work with hiscolleagues in harmony.” In that case, however, the court found that the reference to theplaintiff’s personality traits, was irrelevant as the plaintiff’s position was changed as a result of abona fide business reorganization.[82] The Bank also relies on the Bahen v. ING Canada P & C Inc., 2001 C.L.L.C. 210-004(Ont. Sup. Ct.) case wherein the judge found no acrimony even though the employer viewed Mr.Bahen as “having something of a negative personality.” The finding in the Bahen case atparagraph 40 was that:“Even though Mr. Poole might view him as having something of a negativepersonality, I accept Mr. Poole’s evidence that he wanted Mr. Bahen in the job,and needed his technical expertise. Indeed, Mr. Bahen confirmed that Mr. Polehad told him that his type of special knowledge and claims experience was neededin the new division. There is no evidence that there was acrimony between himand Mr. Bahen, and Mr. Curtis indicated that he, too, thought that Mr. Bahen wasthe best fit for the position.”[83] The Bank argues that in the Manager of Business Development/Special Projects role Mr.Chandran would have continued to report to Mr. Flowers. He would work at the downtown