FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey

Balogun v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP Page 7[23] Mr. Fichtner testified he intended to ask the plaintiff for a letter of resignation,which would be the normal practice, but the plaintiff left the office before he could doso, and no further efforts were made to request such a letter.[24] The plaintiff returned to Prince George from his vacation on July 2 and, onarrival at his apartment found a copy of a Record of Employment (ROE) – thestandard document that an employer must file for employment insurance purposeswhen employment ends for any reason. On the portion of the form that states thereason for issuing the document, the code meaning “quit” was filled in. The plaintifftestified he was surprised to see the ROE because, in his view, he had not quit.2011 BCSC 1314 (CanLII)[25] The ROE was prepared by the defendant’s national office in Toronto. Theplaintiff testified that he found it partially sticking out of an opened envelope that hadbeen attached to the door of his apartment. He asserts that it could not have beenmailed because his apartment number was missing from the address on thedocument.[26] The plaintiff testified that he applied for employment insurance but hisapplication was initially rejected on the basis of the statement in the ROE that hehad quit. However, Service Canada subsequently accepted his appeal and providedemployment insurance benefits.[27] Approximately two years later, the plaintiff obtained his Service Canada fileand found that it contained a second ROE stating he had been dismissed. None ofthe defendant’s witnesses knew anything of this document and, unlike the originalROE, it is not signed by any representative of the defendant. It was obviouslyprepared at a later date because it shows the plaintiff’s address as the one in NorthYork, Ontario, to which he moved after his employment in Prince George ended.[28] This second ROE may have been generated by Service Canada for its ownrecords after it allowed the plaintiff’s appeal. Wherever it came from, there is noevidence that the defendant had any knowledge of it and I cannot accept it as anadmission by the defendant that the plaintiff was dismissed.