A 51-year-old golf superintendent who was fired less than a month after taking on a new job has been awarded five months’ notice for wrongful dismissal by an Ontario court, with the judge tacking on $100 in moral damages.
Deputy Judge David M. José awarded the worker $34,303.92 in damages for wrongful dismissal against Lyndebrook Golf Course. The court found that the superintendent — M.S. — was terminated without cause and without reasonable notice, entitling him to five months’ pay in lieu of notice, plus interest.
M.S. had more than 15 years of experience as a golf superintendent before joining Lyndebrook in May 2022. Dissatisfied with his previous position at Spring Creek Golf Club, he responded to a late-season job posting by Lyndebrook, which urgently needed a superintendent after its previous one left unexpectedly. M.S. claimed he was enticed to leave his former employment based on promises of a fixed-term verbal contract guaranteeing work until the end of the golf season.
Less than a month into his new role, M.S. was abruptly terminated by Lyndebrook’s owner and general manager without prior warning or explanation. The dismissal occurred on June 3, 2022, leaving M.S. “shocked” and “devastated.” He later received a text message from the owner stating, “No M. I’m sorry I’m not interested I’m done,” when he sought a meeting to discuss the termination.
M.S. alleged wrongful dismissal, claiming entitlement to the balance of the contracted term or, alternatively, reasonable notice equivalent to the remainder of the golf season. He also asserted that his firing was partly motivated by religious discrimination, violating the Ontario Human Rights Code, and sought additional damages for the employer’s “hard-ball” tactics post-termination.
Lyndebrook contended that M.S. was employed under an indefinite term contract, denied any inducement to lure him from his previous job, and argued that he was dismissed for cause due to incompetence and poor management style. The company maintained that the termination payment of two weeks’ salary exceeded statutory requirements and was sufficient.
Key findings of the court
Deputy Judge José examined several critical issues to reach his decision:
Contract duration: The court concluded that the employment contract was of indefinite duration. “There was nothing in the discussions or behaviour of the parties that suggested…this was a one-and-done (fixed term) employment contract,” the judge stated. M.S. failed to meet the burden of proving a fixed-term contract existed.
Just cause for termination: The court found no legal cause for dismissal. Lyndebrook did not provide prior warnings or evidence of gross incompetence required for immediate termination. “Lyndebrook fell very short of satisfying the burden of ‘providing real evidence of gross incompetence,'” Deputy Judge José wrote. Allegations of incompetence were unsubstantiated, and hearsay evidence from employees was given little weight.
Human rights violation claim: The court dismissed M.S.’s claim of religious discrimination. “I believe (the owner) was purely motivated to fire M.S. based on the reports of employee angst, and not some discussion about religion,” the judge noted. There was insufficient evidence to suggest that the termination was motivated by any grounds protected under the Human Rights Code.
Inducement to leave previous employment: The court rejected the claim of inducement. M.S. responded to a job posting and was not aggressively recruited. “Inducement requires more than just offering more money or providing a nicer workplace,” the judge remarked, referencing Firatli v. Kohler Ltd.
Reasonable notice period: Applying the Bardal factors—age, length of service, position, and availability of similar employment—the court determined that five months was appropriate for reasonable notice. Despite his short tenure, M.S.’s specialized role and the mid-season timing of his dismissal made finding comparable employment challenging. “A specialist like M.S. can only replace his work at another golf course, and those positions would not be readily available, especially mid-season,” Deputy Judge José observed.
Duty to mitigate damages: M.S. had an obligation to mitigate his losses by seeking similar employment. The court was satisfied that he took reasonable steps, noting, “I have no reason to disbelieve M.S. when he says he looked for alternative employment.” Income earned during the notice period was deducted from the damages awarded.
Damages awarded
The court calculated M.S.’s damages as follows:
- Five months’ salary at $1,800 per week: $39,348.00
- Vacation pay at 4%: $1,573.92
- Less income earned during notice period: -$2,974.00
- Less termination pay already received: -$3,744.00
- Total damages: $34,203.92
Additionally, the court awarded $100 in moral damages due to Lyndebrook’s breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The employer made serious allegations against M.S., including “incompetence, malfeasance, dishonesty, and egregious behaviour,” which were not proven and were considered “hardball” tactics. “Lyndebrook’s conduct, in my view, fell short of the fair dealing required by Wallace,” the judge stated.
No punitive damages
The court declined to award punitive damages, concluding that while Lyndebrook’s actions breached the duty of good faith, they did not rise to the level of “malicious, oppressive or high-handed conduct.” Deputy Judge José expressed confidence that the compensatory damages would deter similar future conduct by the employer.
Implications for HR Professionals and Employers
This ruling highlights several important considerations:
- Employment Contracts: Clearly define the terms of employment, including duration and termination provisions, in writing. Ambiguities can lead to disputes over whether a contract is of fixed or indefinite duration.
- Termination Procedures: Before terminating an employee for cause, especially without notice, employers must provide documented evidence of misconduct or incompetence and offer the employee an opportunity to address concerns. Immediate dismissal without prior warnings is risky unless gross misconduct is evident.
- Good Faith Obligations: Employers have a duty of good faith and fair dealing during dismissal. Making unsubstantiated allegations or employing aggressive litigation tactics can result in additional damages.
- Mitigation of Damages: While employees are required to mitigate losses, employers challenging mitigation efforts must provide evidence that comparable employment was available.
- Human Rights Considerations: Employers should avoid discussions or actions that could be perceived as discriminatory. Even casual inquiries about personal matters like religion can lead to allegations under the Human Rights Code.
“The circumstances of this case illustrate that…a wrongfully dismissed short-term employee can nonetheless be entitled to significant common law reasonable notice,” the judge concluded, reinforcing the potential liabilities employers face when termination procedures are not properly managed.
