A Saskatchewan court has struck a wrongful dismissal claim from an employee who worked only 19 hours over three days before failing to return to work after a Christmas shutdown, ruling the action was an abuse of process that sought to relitigate matters already resolved by statutory tribunals.
The Court of King’s Bench for Saskatchewan dismissed the claim from W.N., who was hired by Madazen Foods Inc. on Dec. 20, 2022, at $16 per hour. After working Dec. 21-23, the company closed for Christmas. W.N. was scheduled to return Jan. 3, 2023, but didn’t show up.
Employee claims illness prevented return to work
W.N. said he was ill and tried to text his supervisor, D.Z., to notify the company of his absence. However, Z. was likely out of the country on vacation and didn’t receive the message. The company terminated W.N.’s employment for failing to attend work.
On Jan. 16, 2023, W.N. emailed Z. explaining he had been ill. Z. confirmed the termination, stating it was due to the unexcused absence after such brief employment.
W.N. received his outstanding wages through the Employment Standards Branch in February 2023. He then filed a discrimination complaint with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, which was dismissed in August 2023.
Court finds multiple grounds for striking claim
Despite these resolutions, W.N. filed a wrongful dismissal lawsuit in August 2024, seeking various remedies including $400,000 in punitive damages.
The court found the claim met several criteria for being struck under Rule 7-9 of The King’s Bench Rules.
Scandalous and vexatious elements
The court ruled the claim was scandalous because it made “baseless claims against the defendants of ‘bad faith'” and alleged Z. “lied or knowingly misled” and engaged in “egregious conduct, high-handed misconduct and oppression.”
“Pleadings are not intended as a free forum for gratuitous insult and slander,” the court stated.
The claim was also found to be frivolous as it “advances claims which are groundless and cannot succeed” and vexatious for advancing “claims that are not known to law.”
Abuse of process
Most significantly, the court found the claim was an abuse of process because it sought to relitigate matters already resolved through proper statutory channels.
“The fact is that the question of his termination and entitlement to payment of wages and proper notice have already been settled under the statutory framework and through the statutory tribunals provided for such disputes,” the court wrote.
As a short-term, non-union hourly worker, W.N. had no security of tenure under The Saskatchewan Employment Act. The legislation requires more than 13 consecutive weeks of service to be entitled to employment leave. His only right upon dismissal without cause was to notice as established by the Act.
The court noted: “The Legislature, having provided for resolution of such dispute through those tribunals, has removed the Court’s jurisdiction, except through judicial review. The Amended Statement of Claim therefore offends the rule against collateral attack.”
Personal liability claim against supervisor fails
The court also addressed W.N.’s attempt to hold Z. personally liable for the employment dispute, noting the employer was Madazen Foods Inc., not Z. individually.
“One purpose of incorporation is to limit liability to the corporation,” the court explained, adding there was nothing in the claim that would extend liability to Z. as either a manager or officer of the company.
Excessive damages claim criticized
The court described the $400,000 punitive damages claim as “simply absurd,” noting W.N. worked only 19 hours at $16 per hour for total earnings of $304, aside from any entitlement to additional notice.
The claim also sought damages for various losses supposedly resulting from the job loss, which the court said were not compensable damages. The court noted W.N. employed a “but for” test, arguing that but for losing his job, he might not have made other decisions that hurt his finances.
“That is not the test the Court would apply,” the court stated, explaining that concepts of proof of damages, causation and remoteness would bar such claims.
The court struck the entire claim without leave to amend, meaning W.N. cannot refile an amended version. The defendants were awarded costs payable forthwith.
For more information, see Nakihimba v Zawryucka, 2025 SKKB 66 (CanLII).
