Mr. Pohl, a 50-year-old sales manager with 28 years of tenure at Hudson's Bay was offered a demotion to a "sales associate lead" with less hours, no guarantee of hours, less pay and a contract that would allow the company to terminate his employment by providing him with only minimum statutory entitlements, all on the condition that he "voluntarily resign" from his managerial position. Mr. Pohl refused the offer and was subsequently walked off the premises. He successfully sued Hudson's Bay for wrongful dismissal, and was awarded $45,000 in moral damages and $10,000 in punitive damages. The Court's reasoning for awarding moral damages included: * The employer's highly insensitive decision to walk Mr. Pohl out the door on termination and needlessly embarrass him; * The "misleading" way in which the employer attempted to lock Mr. Pohl into a new, less beneficial, contract; * Failure to pay Mr. Pohl's outstanding wages in a lump sum post termination, despite repeated demands that they do so; and * Failure to issue a timely and correct Record of Employment, thereby increasing Mr. Pohl's "sense of exploitation, humiliation, and depression". The Court found that the employer's conduct was effectively an attempt to take advantage of a loyal, long-term employee during a vulnerable moment, which was a breach of the employer's duty of good faith and fair dealing which warranted an award of moral damages. Rutledge v Markhaven Inc., 2022 ONSC 3183 Ms. Rutledge, a 43-year-old Executive Director at a long term health facility with 21 years of service, was awarded wrongful dismissal damages of 22 months' pay in lieu of reasonable notice, as well as $50,000 for bad faith and moral damages resulting from the egregious manner in which Markhaven conducted an investigation into an alleged workplace relationship between Ms. Rutledge and another employee, and litigation conduct of Markhaven's defence counsel. Specifically, in awarding bad faith and moral damages, the Court found that: * Ms. Rutledge was informed that the investigation would be conducted by an independent third party, but it was actually conducted by a business associated with Markhaven's defence counsel; * The investigation was undertaken surreptitiously before Ms. Rutledge was informed that the investigation would be taking place, and the investigator secured information from her without her prior knowledge; * Part of the interviews connected with the investigation took place at a local Tim Hortons where some of the 150 employees of Markhaven frequented, thereby failing to conduct the investigation in a confidential manner; and * During ensuing litigation, Ms. Rutledge walked into an examination for discovery where she was confronted with photographs of her home, and comments by Markhaven's lawyer regarding a pending motion for "security for costs", which was never brought.
 Question 1. What is the summary of the case? 2. What are the facts of the case? 3. Which is the defendant and the plaintiffs? 4. What does the law says regarding this case? 5. What are the proceedings of the case? 6. What is the decision of the case? 7. What is the conclusion of the case?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

I can provide a summary of the cases you mentioned Rutledge v Markhaven Inc 2022 ONSC 3183 1 Summary In this case Ms Rutledge an Executive Director at ... View the full answer