New Brunswick Court of Appeal rejects claim for unjust enrichment in ordinary wrongful dismissal action
Clarence Bennett and Lara Greenough
In ExxonMobil Business Support Centre Canada ULC v Birmingham, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal considered the equitable remedy of unjust enrichment in the context of an ordinary wrongful dismissal claim. Ultimately, the Court found unjust enrichment cannot be a remedial source in such a claim. In its analysis, the Court confirmed a number of principles respecting notice and damages in wrongful dismissal claims, which are beneficial to employers.
Facts
Mr. Birmingham was employed by ExxonMobil for 14 years. At the time his employment was terminated he worked in their facilities management division. As part of a global restructuring of its operations, Exxon announced in the summer of 2016 that it was outsourcing its management division to a new company: CBRE.
Mr. Birmingham was advised his employment with Exxon would terminate but he would be offered continuing employment with CBRE at the same salary with other benefits and incentives – he was told that continued employment with Exxon in another role was not an option. Mr. Birmingham accepted the new position with CBRE in September of 2016; his employment with Exxon terminated at the end of 2016, and he began with CBRE January 1, 2017.
As of January 1, 2017, Mr. Birmingham was therefore working for a new employer but doing the same job at the same salary with slightly different benefits.
Exxon offered Mr. Birmingham a severance package to address possible loss of benefits during an 11 month notice period in exchange for a release. Mr. Birmingham declined the package and sued Exxon for wrongful dismissal.
In the end, the trial judge found that the 11 months advanced by Exxon was the appropriate notice period and there were no grounds for an award of aggravated or punitive damages against Exxon. Despite this, the trial judge awarded $50,000 to Mr. Birmingham for unfairness in the termination process and/or unjust enrichment that flowed to Exxon as a consequence of the restructuring. He also declined to deduct the retention bonus paid to Mr. Birmingham during the notice period as mitigation income. Exxon appealed the trial judge’s decision.
Court of Appeal’s analysis and decision
On appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge’s decision and found that Mr. Birmingham was entitled to damages for breach of contract (reduced by the retention bonus paid during the notice period, which was mitigation income), being pay in lieu of notice in the amount of $5,000 – there was no entitlement to damages for unfairness or unjust enrichment. The amount awarded was less than the amount rejected by Mr. Birmingham on termination. The Court made the following conclusions in its analysis, which are helpful for employers:
- When an employee is terminated without cause, absent human rights considerations, the reasons for termination are irrelevant;
- An employee is not entitled to damages for loss of employment simply because it is “unfair” – absent bad faith or other extenuating circumstances, all that an employee is entitled to receive when terminated is reasonable notice of dismissal;
- There is no basis in law for an employee to contend they have a reasonable expectation to compete for another job with an employer when their employment is terminated;
- The right to terminate with notice is not modified where the termination of an employee results in a benefit to an employer or there are other job opportunities available with the employer;
- If claiming aggravated damages, the onus is on the employee to establish injuries do not flow from dismissal itself but from the manner of the dismissal; and
- The amount of severance offered to another employee is completely irrelevant and cannot be used as a basis for calculating an award of damages.
With respect to Mr. Birmingham’s claim for unjust enrichment specifically, the Court concluded:
- Birmingham’s claim was governed by the terms of his employment contract with Exxon – the contract governing the restructuring which precipitated the termination, the terms and the negotiation of those terms, were irrelevant to Mr. Birmingham’s claim for wrongful dismissal;
- Birmingham’s “work” was not a “benefit” transferred from Mr. Birmingham to Exxon, nor was there a corresponding deprivation as is required by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Mr. Birmingham’s alleged losses were incurred because his contract of employment with Exxon ended; and
- Finally, Mr. Birmingham’s work was always governed by an employment contract (with Exxon or with CBRE) which is a clear “juristic reason” negating any otherwise provable claim of unjust enrichment.
In short, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply in an ordinary wrongful dismissal claim.
Archive
Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…
Read MoreJoe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…
Read MoreOn July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…
Read MoreOn April 1, 2016 New Brunswick’s Mortgage Brokers Act came into force, requiring businesses acting as mortgage brokerages or as mortgage administrators in New Brunswick to be licensed. A mortgage brokerage is a business that on behalf…
Read MoreIn May 2016, the Federal Court of Canada confirmed that copyright does not protect facts, even where a book’s author is clearly inspired by the content of a film (Maltz v. Witterick, 2016 FC 524 (CanLII)).…
Read MoreBy Jennifer Taylor “…firms of notaries or lawyers…must not be turned into archives for the tax authorities”1 So says the Supreme Court of Canada in one of two highly anticipated decisions on solicitor-client privilege, offering lawyers…
Read MoreJoe Thorne1 and Clara Linegar2 As joint owners of a business, what do you do when the business relationship falls apart? And what if one owner undermines the business in the process? In Smith v Hillier,3 Justice Paquette…
Read MoreThe Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed the appeals in Bruce Brine v. Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc.1 (with costs) and Luciano Branco, et al. v. Zurich Life Insurance Company Limited, et al.(without costs). Both of…
Read MoreOn May 4, 2016, the Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act (“PRPP Act”) was proclaimed in force, and finalized Pooled Registered Pension Plan Regulations were released. While there were no major changes from the previously released draft regulations, the proposed rules…
Read MoreBy Level Chan and Dante Manna Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) are closer to becoming a reality for Nova Scotian employers. PRPPs were established by the Federal government in an effort to address the lack of retirement savings…
Read More