Robertson v. Red Robin Restaurants of Canada Ltd. (1998), B.C.J. No. 884 Vancouver Registry No. 96-29769

Robertson began work for the Victoria branch of the defendant restaurant in 1991. By 1995 he was assisting the manager. With the company's support, Robertson moved from Victoria to the Guildford branch. He was the assistant to the General Manager in Guildford, earning $30,000 a year. In May of 1996, a new Acting General Manager was appointed and Robertson was told that he needed further development before he would be given the store. He was under the impression that he was a valued employee. On July 15, 1996, he was called to a meeting in the public area of the restaurant, where he was told that he did not have the "right stuff," and that both parties should cut their losses, and he was terminated. Robertson stated that he was given no option by the defendant employer but to leave. He was given five weeks' severance for the five years that he was employed. The defendant stated that Robertson chose to terminate his employment and that payment in lieu of notice was reasonable and that Robertson had failed to mitigate his damages. Robertson sued for damages, including punitive damages, for breach of employment contract and termination.

Robertson was awarded judgment in the amount of $8,538.48, including additional damages due to the manner of dismissal. The defendant conceded that the plaintiff was dismissed without cause. The employer's actions constituted a wrongful dismissal without notice, without warning, and without documentation. The employer's conduct was insensitive, but not intentionally malicious. The claimant was terminated from the position of middle manager, and the reasonable notice period would have been 15 weeks. The claimant did all he reasonably could in mitigation. The court held that employers ought to be held to an obligation of good faith and fair dealing in the manner of dismissal. A breach of those principles would be compensated for by adding to the length of the notice period. The claim by the defendant that the claimant had left by his own choice was high-handed and offensive. The position of the employer was indefensible and combined with the public nature of the termination meeting resulted in a loss of self-esteem, public humiliation of the claimant, and a loss of confidence. An appropriate addition to the notice period in this case was two months.

Q1. Identify the general damages and punitive damages awarded by the court in the case above?
Q2. Where do you think Robertson would have started his legal battle, where can an employee go to  complain in Ontario and seek advise before filing legal claims? (60-70 words)

 

Case 2 (7%)

Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts, [1988] 1. S.C.R. 1186
https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/349/index.do?site_preference=normal

BACKGROUND
As a promotion for its ski resort, Sundance Northwest Resorts hosted a competition in which a two-person team raced down a steep hill in an inner tube. The prize was $200. Mr. Crocker paid the $15 entrance fee and signed the entry form, without reading it. Consequently, he did not know the form contained a waiver clause.
Crocker was visibly drunk at the beginning of the first race. At the start of the second race, the owner of Sundance asked Crocker if he was in any condition to compete but did nothing to stop him. The resort manager also suggested that he not continue but took no further steps to restrict him when he insisted on competing. During the second race, Crocker suffered a serious neck injury and was rendered quadriplegic.
Crocker sued the ski resort for negligence. At trial, he was successful in his suit, but the Court applied the defence of contributory negligence. Crocker was awarded 75 percent of his damages. He appealed. The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge's decision and found that the resort was not liable at all. Crocker appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

LEGAL QUESTION
1. Did Sundance owe a duty of care to Mr. Crocker? If a duty existed, what standard of care was required and was the standard met?

ANALYSIS
2. What did Mr. Crocker have to show, to prove that the resort was negligent?

3.What are three possible defense's Sundance could argue in this case?

4.Why do you think Crocker appealed the trial judge's decision? How did the trial judge's decision differ from that of the Supreme Court of Canada?

5. If Crocker's intoxication had not been evident, would Sundance Resorts still have been liable for his in-juries? Explain.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Question 1 The general damages awarded by the court in Robertson v Red Robin Restaurants of Canada Ltd were 853848 There were no punitive damages awar... View the full answer