An appeal contesting a 12-month notice period awarded to an operations specialist who had been recruited from a long-term, secure position has been dismissed by the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
The case, which centered on the issue of inducement in wrongful dismissal claims, establishes that even modest forms of inducement can justify an increased notice period when an employee leaves secure employment for a position that terminates after a relatively short period.
Employee recruited from secure, long-term position
G.F., a chemical engineer with 27 years of service at a pulp and paper mill operated by Catalyst Paper on Vancouver Island, was contacted by a recruiter working for Mercer Celgar Limited Partnership in January 2018. The recruiter reached out via LinkedIn about an “opportunity to lead a world class team and mill” at Celgar’s operation in Castlegar, B.C.
Although G.F. was not actively seeking alternative employment, he responded positively to the outreach, noting that he had “always seen Celgar as a company that invests in its people and reinvests in the mill.”
At the time, G.F. was 53 years old and planned to retire from his position at Catalyst at age 61. While he was not particularly happy in his role at Catalyst, he felt secure in his employment, though he did have some concerns about the possibility of the Crofton Mill closing before his planned retirement.
Recruitment process included site visit and increased salary offer
Following initial email exchanges, G.F. and his spouse were invited to visit the Celgar mill in Castlegar, with the company covering their travel expenses. During this visit, G.F. met with senior management, including the mill manager, production manager, and human resources manager.
When Celgar made its initial employment offer, the position was for operations specialist rather than the initially advertised fibreline manager position. The starting salary of $130,000 was nearly identical to G.F.’s earnings at Catalyst.
Finding insufficient incentive to leave his secure employment, G.F. informed Celgar he would decline the offer. In response, Celgar increased the salary offer to $140,000, which G.F. accepted, resigning from his position at Catalyst.
Employment terminated after two years
G.F. worked at Celgar from April 2018 until September 2020, when his employment was terminated without cause as part of a downsizing that affected approximately 15 employees. By the time the case went to trial, Celgar had paid G.F. the equivalent of five months’ salary in lieu of notice.
Trial judge finds inducement increased notice period
The trial judge determined that G.F. had been induced to leave his previous employment, which warranted an increase in the notice period. The judge cited several factors supporting this conclusion:
- G.F. was recruited by Celgar and was not actively looking for alternative employment
- Celgar paid for G.F.’s visit to the mill site and attempted to make the job attractive to him
- During the site visit, a Celgar manager highlighted advantages over Catalyst, including paid overtime, better benefits, and a stable fibre supply
- G.F. was expressly told that Celgar “hired for the long term”
- Celgar’s HR manager specifically asked G.F. how long he was prepared to commit to the company
- G.F. only accepted the position after Celgar increased its initial salary offer
Based on these factors, the trial judge concluded that “Celgar created an expectation on the part of [G.F.] that the opportunity at Celgar was such that it would be advantageous to him to leave his secure long-standing employment and take a job which was expected to be long-term.”
The judge set the notice period at 12 months, noting that without the inducement, the five months already paid would have been appropriate.
Appeal court rejects employer’s arguments
On appeal, Celgar argued that the trial judge erred in finding inducement had occurred and that even if there was inducement, it was “modest” and should not have increased the notice period to 12 months.
The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, finding no basis for appellate interference. The court emphasized that inducement does not necessarily require “aggressive ‘luring'” but can include “tacit persuasion and implicit assurances of job security and increased compensation.”
The appellate court stated: “It is certainly conceivable that there may be circumstances in which there is equal interest on the part of the employee and employer, yet resistance on the part of the employee to give up their existing secure employment.”
The court also noted that the trial judge had properly considered the inducement in combination with the traditional Bardal factors, including G.F.’s age (56 at termination) and limited employment options given his specialized experience in the pulp mill sector.
While Celgar suggested 10 months would be an appropriate notice period if inducement was found, the appeal court concluded that “an award of damages equivalent to 12 months’ salary in lieu of notice is not inordinately high in circumstances of this case.”
Employment law principles affirmed
The case reinforces several important principles regarding inducement in employment law:
- Inducement exists on a spectrum, with most cases falling somewhere along that range rather than meeting a bright-line test
- The significance of inducement “will vary with the circumstances of the particular case”
- There is “no formula by which an inducement will increase the notice period”
- Courts protect employees’ “reliance and expectation interests” when they are induced to leave secure positions
The appeal court concluded there was “no reversible error” in the trial judge’s determination that “there was some degree of inducement to justify an increase in the notice period.”
For more information, see Mercer Celgar Limited Partnership v. Ferweda, 2025 BCCA 120 (CanLII).
