By John Chilibeck | The Daily Gleaner
An instructor in New Brunswick who had accused a forestry college of firing him for his outspoken views about chemical spraying has lost his appeal for greater damages.
In a unanimous decision, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal rejected Rod Cumberland’s case earlier this month, telling him the lower court judge and made no errors in law and that he had not proven that he was terminated by the Maritime College of Forest Technology in Fredericton because he was against the timber industry’s herbicide spraying.
“Mr. Cumberland’s trial lasted eight days, much of which was dominated by exploring the theory he advanced for his dismissal: he was the victim of a conspiracy involving the College and the forestry industry in the province seeking to silence him for his views on the use of the herbicide glyphosate,” wrote Justice Brad Green, writing on behalf of the three-judge panel, in the decision.
“The trial judge flatly rejected this theory.”
Cumberland, a former biologist with the provincial Department of Natural Resources, worked at the college for seven years before being fired in 2019.
The decision was controversial because he accused the college of caving into the province’s powerful timber industry that didn’t like his stance against spraying.
The industry argues that if used correctly, the chemical spray poses no risks and allows softwood trees to grow without as much competition from other plants.
But opponents, including Stop Spraying New Brunswick, warn that it causes cancer and kills wildlife that want to browse on the plants it is meant to eliminate.
Court of King’s Bench Chief Justice Tracey DeWare ruled in 2023 that the college had been justified in firing him because he had been disruptive in the workplace and rude and abusive toward students.
But she agreed that the college should have warned him properly and he wasn’t given the chance to correct his behaviour.
She awarded Cumberland the equivalent of seven months’pay, $48,645, and another $6,700 in legal costs.
The wildlife biologist appealed her decision, arguing he should have been awarded more money, including $200,000 in moral and punitive damages.
After hearing arguments in March, the justices rejected his appeal, reciting how he had abused his authority as an instructor.
“Throughout her lengthy, thoughtful, and well-reasoned decision, the trial judge outlined in detail numerous specific examples of the behaviours referenced above, including reproducing emails to and from Mr. Cumberland,” wrote Justice Green.
“Often, his own words were decidedly unhelpful to the arguments he eventually advanced at trial. Interactions with students, staff, and supervisors paint a clear picture of an untenable work environment.”
Furthermore, the justice wrote that the purpose of an appeal court was to review possible errors in law or mistakes in lower-court rulings.
“An appeal is not an open invitation for an unsuccessful party to relitigate his or her claim. This appeal bears the hallmarks of such an approach.”
The judge wrote that he was satisfied that the seven-month notice period had been reasonable and consistent with similar cases of wrongful dismissal in New Brunswick.
“The record simply does not support Mr. Cumberland’s numerous allegations that the trial judge ‘failed to consider’certain arguments or pieces of evidence. The decision was thorough and comprehensive, and the trial judge clearly had a firm grasp of the issues, arguments, and evidence before her.”
In dismissing the appeal, Cumberland was ordered to pay $2,500 in legal costs.
