FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey

Balogun v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP Page 5[14] The plaintiff, based on his American qualification, formed the opinion that U.S.tax issues had not been correctly addressed in prior years. His concerns wereultimately referred to U.S. tax experts in the defendant’s Vancouver office and theplaintiff came to believe he was the only person in the Prince George office capableof dealing with U.S. tax matters.III. The Plaintiff’s Departure[15] The employment contract provided for a review after six months for thepurpose of adjusting the plaintiff’s salary, based on performance. The plaintiff washired at a starting annual salary of $64,000 and at the end of the six-month periodwanted a raise to $100,000.2011 BCSC 1314 (CanLII)[16] Mr. Buchan testified that his opinion, as of May 2006, was that the plaintiff’swork to that point did not warrant a raise and that he made his position clear when anumber of issues were discussed at a performance review meeting on May 15,2006. A memorandum by Mr. Buchan, dated May 15, 2006, includes a statementthat he told the plaintiff any salary increase would be based on performance, notmerely on the fact he had been there for six months, and that his performance tothat point had not met expectations. The plaintiff denied that meeting took place andcalled the memo a “fraud”.[17] The issue arose again prior to the June 16 meeting. On June 14, Mr Buchansent the plaintiff an email stating again that there would be no salary increase,although the matter might be reviewed in another six months if the plaintiffsatisfactorily addressed a number of other job performance issues referred to in theemail. The plaintiff replied that, based on Mr. Buchan’s comments about salary, hedid not think the planned meeting would be productive and “it’s really a non-starterfrom my point of view”. He said he could not comment on the other issues “withoutbeing defensive”.[18] At trial, the plaintiff testified that he considered this exchange to be a matter ofnegotiating tactics and hoped at the June 16 meeting to convince Mr. Buchan andMr. Fichtner that he deserved the raise he was seeking. On the other issues, he