View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 18[89] The Bank also notes that the offer was made before Mr. Chandran left and before hecommenced this action.[90] The Bank argues that it genuinely wanted Mr. Chandran to stay. This was communicatedby both Mr. Flowers and Ms. Kenney at the meetings on August 27 and September 12, 2007.There is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Flowers and Ms. Kenney were being insincere. Theyboth testified that they thought Mr. Chandran was highly skilled, that it was difficult to findindividuals with his skills, and therefore it was important to try to retain Mr. Chandran.Although Mr. Flowers and Ms. Kenney were employees and representatives of the Bank. I findthat the evidence of their intent is outweighed by the content of the serious disciplinary letter ofSeptember 5, 2007. This letter clearly indicated the intent of the Bank with respect to Mr.Chandran’s future employment.[91] As I have found above, the important distinguishing factual basis in this case (which isnot present in any of the cases relied on by the Bank) is that there are no serious disciplinaryfinding of guilt by the employer against the employee.2011 ONSC 777 (CanLII)[92] I find that having been issued the serious discipline by the Bank and forced to accepteither of the positions which were not equal in terms to the one that he held, Mr. Chandran wouldhave been subjected to “an atmosphere of embarrassment or humiliation” in an environmentwhere he could not expect that his employer would not act to put “his interests in jeopardy” (asreferred to by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Evans case), if he had accepted reemployment.He did not therefore have a positive duty to accept the offers. Had he taken one ofthe two positions offered by the Bank, he would have had to conduct a search for alternativeemployment from an inferior position and with serious discipline as part of his terms andconditions of that employment. If such discipline was disclosed to potential employers, or if hehad been fired by the Bank, it is reasonable to anticipate that Mr. Chandran would not haveobtained the employment that he did, fourteen months after he was dismissed.Did Mr. Chandran fail to take reasonable steps to mitigate his damages?[93] The Bank further pleads in the alternative that Mr. Chandran failed to take reasonablesteps to mitigate his damages by failing to apply for available account manager positions.[94] The Bank submits that Mr. Chandran had a duty “to attempt to secure other employmentand to make all reasonable efforts to secure such a position as one could reasonably expect himto take under all the circumstances.” Further, it is submitted that Mr. Chandran is not entitled torecover damages for any loss which could have reasonably been avoided. In the Michaels v. RedDeer College, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 324 case, Laskin C.J. said at paragraph 9:“The primary rule in breach of contract cases, that a wronged plaintiff is entitledto be put in as good a position as he would have been in if there had been properperformance by the defendant, is subject to the qualification that the defendantcannot be called upon to pay for avoidable losses which would result in an