Moot Case 5: The OC Court Of Appeal - The Case Of The Promot ✓ Solved

Moot Case 5the Oc Court Of Appealthe Case Of The Promotion

Quentin was employed as a commissioned salesperson by a large computer and electronics company operating out of Kelowna called Limitless Universe Technologies, Inc. (“Limitless”). He received a basic salary of $2,000.00 per month, and a commission on his gross sales made on behalf of the company. In addition, the company paid for his reasonable travel and living expenses while he was on the road, as he was for most of each year. Quentin was a highly successful salesperson, earning approximately $75,000.00 annually from commissions, in addition to his base salary.

Quentin also decided to take on a proposal Limitless wished to make to a government agency to research and then contract with the agency to have Limitless build a new electronic system emitting high-pitched sounds beyond the ability of the human ear to hear, but which would be unbearable to the birds and other critters that habitually destroyed much of the annual cherry crop in the Okanagan Valley. If Limitless obtained the contract it would mean a hefty commission of $100,000.00 to Quentin all on its own. Quentin spent hours conducting research and preparing specifications for the proposal.

A few days after Quentin’s proposal was submitted, his boss, I. M. A. Piker, invited Quentin into his office to inform him of a company-wide reorganization. Piker offered Quentin a position as regional manager of sales and marketing at an annual salary of $100,000.00, with benefits but no commissions. If Quentin declined the promotion, he would suffer a significantly reduced sales territory and expected a 15% decline in commissions. When Quentin asked if he would lose his commission related to the proposal for the government contract, Piker affirmed he would indeed lose that future commission. Angry over this revelation, Quentin confronted Piker and accused him of "stealing" his commission. In response, Piker fired Quentin on the spot.

Quentin subsequently initiated a lawsuit for wrongful dismissal against Limitless, but the trial court dismissed his case. He has since appealed the decision, raising several significant legal issues.

Legal Issues for Consideration

The legal matters in this case primarily revolve around eight key issues:

• Whether Quentin has a right to refuse or accept a promotion.
• Whether refusing a promotion is a sufficient basis for dismissal.
• Whether Quentin was entitled to the commission of the government contract despite any changes to his position.
• Whether the company’s decision to promote Quentin was reasonable.
• Was Quentin wrongfully dismissed to avoid paying his commission?
• Did Piker contravene section 63 of the Employment Standards Act?
• Did Quentin receive adequate notice of his termination at common law?
• Did Piker breach the employment agreement with Quentin?

Breach of Contract and Constructive Dismissal

Under Canadian employment law, breach of contract occurs when one party fails to fulfill the agreed terms of the contract (Goepel, n.d.). In this case, when Quentin was presented with a new contract upon the offer of promotion that stripped him of his commission, it constituted a lack of consideration. The original contract stipulated commissions for sales, while the new position offered only a salary without commissions.

The principle of constructive dismissal applies when an employer makes significant unilateral changes to employment terms (Government of Canada, 2000). In Lancia v. Park Dentistry (2018), the court held that changes made without the employee’s consent could cause constructive dismissal claims. Therefore, Quentin’s case reflects a clear violation of his original employment terms, rendering his termination unjust.

Reasonable Notice of Termination

Quentin was not provided with reasonable notice upon his termination, as stipulated by the Employment Standards Act (2020). Given that Quentin had been a valuable employee for over a year and had a successful track record, failing to provide appropriate notice or severance is likely unjust as evidenced in Machtinger v. Lefebvre (1992). Acknowledging the expectations of clear communication and a fair termination process, the lack of reasonable notice further substantiates Quentin's claim for wrongful dismissal.

Conclusion

Based on the arguments presented, it is evident that Quentin had both a right to refuse the promotion and was unjustly terminated without cause. The change in employment conditions was not consensual nor reasonable, qualifying as a breach of contract and constructive dismissal. Therefore, Quentin's appeal merits consideration for reinstatement and compensation for lost wages and commissions. In light of these legal principles, the proper resolution would be to rule in favor of Quentin.

References

• Goepel, T. D. (n.d.). Employment Breach of Contract – should you go back to work?
• Government of Canada. (2000, September 25). Constructive Dismissal - 815-1-IPG-033.
• Employment Standards Act. (2020, November 11). [RSBC 1996] Chapter 113.
• Mackenzie, R. (2019). Employment Law and the Duty of Good Faith. Osler.
• Lancia v. Park Dentistry, 2018 ONSC 751.
• Machtinger v. Lefebvre, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 986.
• Fredrickson v. Newtech Dental Laboratory Inc., 2015 BCCA 357.
• Paterson, M., Valley, J. M., & Mishra, V. (2019). When does “good faith” limit a company’s choices?
• Mueller, W. H., & Morgan, D. (n.d.). Contracts: Principles and Applications.
• Employment Standards Regulation. (2020, September 1).