A veterinarian’s wrongful dismissal and constructive dismissal claim against a small Ontario clinic was rejected when the court found her insistence on sending a “termination letter” to a former client was unwarranted, effectively amounting to a resignation.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the veterinarian’s action after concluding the clinic took sufficient steps to safeguard its staff and business.
The plaintiff (T.P.) had worked at the clinic for approximately 20 years. The clinic, run by D.C., employed about seven people in Sharon, Ont. T.P. was paid an hourly rate plus a bonus derived from the billings of her own client base. She was earning roughly $86,732 annually prior to leaving her employment. T.P. had some supervisory responsibilities at the clinic as part of her role.
Missing cat
According to the court, the key events arose after a clinic incident involving a missing cat. D.C. had been asked to care for a cat belonging to a client. While under the clinic’s care, the cat escaped, prompting the client’s partner to threaten clinic staff on the phone. Concerned by the nature of the threats, D.C. contacted the police. Officers subsequently investigated, warned the client’s partner to stay away, and advised that charges could follow any future harassment. D.C. also informed her security alarm company of the situation.
Despite these events, T.P. continued working at the clinic without incident for about two weeks. She then took time off following the death of a family member. She produced a doctor’s note that stated: “Her presentation to me indicates she will not be able for medical reasons to return to her normal workplace until this issue is resolved.” The note did not specify what resolution was required, other than indicating “this issue” needed to be addressed.
T.P. told D.C. she believed the clinic should send the owner of the lost cat a letter “terminating him as a client” (the “termination letter”). She insisted she would not return to work without this letter being sent, contending it was necessary to protect her health and satisfy the recommendation in her doctor’s note.
D.C. disagreed, explaining that she had already taken sufficient measures by contacting the police, instructing staff to provide “absolutely no service” to the the client and placing a clear warning on the file. D.C. testified she believed sending any further correspondence could “inflame” the situation. The court quoted her written explanation, which said, in part, “I believe that correspondence from the clinic to this individual is unnecessary and in fact may be counterproductive.”
In a telephone call between T.P. and D.C., T.P. repeated her demand for the termination letter. When D.C. refused, T.P. stated she would not be “coming back.” D.C., in turn, requested the return of T.P.’s clinic keys. T.P. then advised the clinic’s bookkeeper, that she had been “fired.” The bookkeeper relayed this information to D.C., who maintained T.P. had not been dismissed and was simply asked to take more time if needed.
The court examined whether T.P. was constructively dismissed due to the refusal to issue the termination letter. It determined D.C.’s refusal was a reasonable choice under the circumstances and noted T.P. had already worked for two weeks after the lost cat threats without voicing any safety concerns. The judge found no professional rule from the College of Veterinarians of Ontario that obligated the clinic to send such a letter. In the absence of this requirement, the court held it was an “unreasonable and unnecessary” request. It concluded that T.P.’s insistence on the letter, and her refusal to return in its absence, effectively amounted to a resignation.
Moral, human rights damages
T.P. also claimed moral damages and damages under the Human Rights Code, alleging that the clinic’s failure to recall her to work while she was on medical leave amounted to discrimination. The court dismissed both claims, stating there was “no evidence that the Plaintiff had a medical disability.”
The only evidence was the brief doctor’s note, which did not substantiate a specific disability. The court said there was no proof D.C. had forced T.P. to return to work or acted in an “inappropriate or unreasonable or highhanded and insensitive” manner.
T.P. argued D.C. demanded the return of the clinic keys only in situations where someone was “fired,” but the court did not accept that a request for keys necessarily proved termination. It characterized D.C.’s behaviour as that of a “responsible employer,” noting she had already involved the police, alerted staff, and blocked the client from further service. The court held that D.C. was simply reacting to T.P.’s statement that she would not be returning.
Damages would have been 20 months: Court
Although the court considered the possibility of damages if T.P. had been constructively dismissed, it concluded the outcome favoured the clinic. If constructive dismissal had been found, the judge noted T.P. would likely have been entitled to 20 months’ notice based on her two decades of service. However, because T.P. had effectively resigned, no damages were awarded.
The request for moral damages and claims under the Human Rights Code were similarly turned down due to a lack of supporting evidence.
For more information, see Poesl v. Sharon Veterinary Clinic Professional Corporation, 2025 ONSC 622 (CanLII).
