Jasmeen owns a manufacturing plant in White Fox, Saskatchewan and has spent the past 24 months planning to open a new facility in St Catharines, Ontario. She recently transferred her corporate lawyer, Wanda, from the Saskatchewan office to the new location in Ontario. This required that Wanda's husband, also a corporate lawyer, transfer to a new law firm in St Catharines (he is obviously incredibly smart and probably very good looking because that would describe most lawyers). Wanda was reluctant to transfer to Jasmeen's St Catharines' facility, but she was promised "a full relocation package and twice the income when the performance bonuses are factored in". Wanda decided to make the move and her husband reluctantly quit his job. One month after Wanda started her new job in St Catharines, the new facility was abruptly cancelled because Jasmeen decided 'it was more economically feasible to expand the Saskatchewan location' rather than spend the money to build a new facility in Ontario. To make matters worse for Wanda, her old job in Saskatchewan was no longer available because it had been filled by a replacement lawyer. Jasmeen felt badly about all of this, so she offered Wanda a notice package more than the amount to which she would ordinarily be entitled. Wanda called you for advice. Your best response? 

A) Jasmeen negligently misrepresented her business and owed Wanda a duty of care, potentially entitling her to damages in addition to her notice. 

B) Jasmeen engaged in an anticipatory breach. 

C) Jasmeen will likely owe Wanda her common law notice rights based upon her tenure at Jasmeen's business. 

D) Jasmeen is incompetent and will be assessed a supplemental charge reserved for managers of this caliber.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The best response for Wandas situation is C Jasmeen will likely owe Wanda her common law reasonable ... View the full answer