A New Brunswick court has denied a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal lawsuit, ruling that significant credibility disputes and conflicting evidence require a full trial.
The case involves a long-term service advisor at Fredericton Toyota who alleges he was terminated after refusing changes to his compensation structure. The employer maintains that he voluntarily retired.
Background and disputed events
D.B. had been employed at the dealership for over 35 years when, in January 2020, he was presented with a new employment contract. He refused to accept the changes, believing they would negatively affect his compensation. Discussions between the parties continued over the following weeks, and on April 8, 2020, the employer issued a letter outlining revised compensation terms, set to take effect within five days.
D.B. objected to the changes and claims he was dismissed after involving the Employment Standards office, which subsequently contacted the employer. The employer, represented by general manager G.P., disputes this version of events, asserting that D.B. expressed an intent to retire. G.P. further claims that the company assisted D.B. by structuring a layoff to allow him to access employment insurance benefits, followed by a retirement allowance of 16 weeks’ pay.
D.B. left his employment on or about April 15, 2020, and the employer issued a Record of Employment indicating a layoff due to a shortage of work. In January 2022, D.B. contacted the employer regarding the retirement allowance but ultimately declined to accept the payment when it was offered.
Legal framework for summary judgment
The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment in May 2024, arguing that the matter could be resolved without a trial. The court considered the motion under Rule 22 of New Brunswick’s Rules of Court, which allows for summary judgment if there is no genuine issue requiring a trial. The decision referenced the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling in Hryniak v. Mauldin, which encourages courts to adopt summary procedures when they can fairly and justly adjudicate disputes without the need for a full trial.
The court also reviewed case law, noting that wrongful dismissal cases often lend themselves to summary judgment, particularly when cause is not at issue. However, it acknowledged that where significant factual disputes exist—such as whether a termination or voluntary resignation occurred—a trial is often necessary to assess credibility and resolve conflicting evidence.
Court’s analysis and decision
In reviewing the affidavit evidence from both D.B. and G.P., the court found substantial inconsistencies, particularly regarding the nature of the departure. D.B. asserts that he was dismissed due to his refusal to accept changes in compensation, whereas the employer contends he voluntarily retired.
The court noted that a resignation must be “clear and unequivocal,” citing Skidd v. Canada Post Corp. and Nagpal v. IBM Canada Ltd. Similarly, a dismissal must involve a clear and unequivocal act by the employer, as established in Beggs v. Westport Foods Ltd. and Khangura v. Lumberwest Building Supplies Inc.
Despite the employer’s issuance of a Record of Employment indicating a layoff, the court found that conflicting narratives regarding the intent and circumstances of D.B.’s departure could not be resolved on the written record alone. It emphasized that the matter hinged on credibility assessments, which are best determined through oral testimony and cross-examination.
Given these concerns, the court ruled that summary judgment was not appropriate. It also considered whether a mini-trial under Rule 22 would be a suitable alternative but ultimately determined that a full trial was necessary to ensure a fair and just resolution.
Next steps
The court directed the parties to consult and establish a timeline for discovery and other pre-trial procedures, with the goal of setting the case down for trial by the end of 2025. The court also scheduled a case management conference within four to six weeks to monitor progress.
The defendant was awarded costs of $1,250, inclusive of HST and disbursements.
For more information, see Boone v Obeya Motors Inc., 2025 NBKB 46 (CanLII).
