Offices in Ottawa and Perth
(613) 722-1500

CONTACT US (613) 722-1500

Suspending an Employee Indefinitely Without Pay May Amount to Constructive Dismissal

Suspending an Employee Indefinitely Without Pay May Amount to Constructive Dismissal

Mann Lawyers

Posted March 6, 2015

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision today in Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission overturning both the Trial Court and Court of Appeal decisions that David Potter had voluntarily resigned from his position.

The fact that two lower courts concluded that Mr. Potter had resigned while the Supreme Court of Canada disagreed and decided that he had been constructively dismissed is emblematic of how difficult it can be to anticipate whether a constructive dismissal claim will be successful.

The Supreme Court did try to provide some clarity by articulating the following two part test for constructive dismissal:

  1. The court must first identify an express or implied contract term that has been breached
  2. Then the court must determine whether that breach was sufficiently serious to constitute constructive dismissal.

The Supreme Court added however that an employer’s conduct will also constitute constructive dismissal if it more generally shows that the employer did not intend to be bound by the contract. The decision also confirms that courts ought to continue using a ‘flexible approach’ in answering that question. While this flexibility allows courts to assess each case on its facts, I anticipate that this same flexibility will mean employees and their counsel will continue to approach alleging constructive dismissal with some caution.
The decision does however highlight some factors which will weigh in favour of a finding of constructive dismissal, among the ones the Supreme Court of Canada relied on in order to conclude that Potter had been constructively dismissed include:

  1. The employee’s contract did not contain the right (express or implied) to suspend the employee;
  2. Potter was not given any reason for his suspension;
  3. Potter’s suspension was indefinite and he was replaced during the period of suspension; and
  4. Potter did not agree to the change.

To read the full decision please go here.

More Resources

Blog |
Employment, Labour, and Human Rights, Commercial Litigation


Posted May 23, 2023

Both in my commercial and employment litigation practice, I encounter Ontario business owners faced with serious charges laid against them under the Provincial Offences Act[...]
Blog |
Family Law


Posted May 18, 2023

The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Anderson v. Anderson, 2023 SCC 13, provides guidance on domestic contracts and the enforceability of an informal[...]
Blog |
Environmental Law


Posted May 16, 2023

When many people think of contaminated sites, they think of the usual suspects such as industrial properties and gas stations.  They may not think of[...]
Blog |
Business Law


Posted May 9, 2023

Often business owners reach a point where they are considering the sale of their business either through the sale of shares or the sale of[...]
Blog |
Family Law


Posted May 2, 2023

Overview of Tort Claims in Family Matters Tort claims can be made in family law matters, so as to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings and[...]
Blog |
Employment, Labour, and Human Rights


Posted April 25, 2023

In a case that recently was decided from the Court of Appeal of Ontario called Celestini v Shoplogix Inc., 2023 ONCA 131, the Court had[...]

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.