A former municipal employee in the Northwest Territories has been awarded nearly $70,000 in damages and costs after winning a wrongful dismissal case that was complicated by allegations of misconduct and delayed legal proceedings.
W.H.H. worked for the Town of Hay River from April 2014 until his termination without just cause in October 2015. He filed his wrongful dismissal claim in September 2017, seeking damages for inadequate notice.
The Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories initially awarded W.H.H. eight months of salary in lieu of notice totalling $74,646, plus the value of his employment benefits. However, a subsequent hearing was required to determine the final amounts owing after the parties disagreed on calculations and raised issues about costs and prejudgment interest.
Damage calculations reduced by previous payments
The court found that W.H.H. had received $12,316.50 when he was terminated, representing six weeks of pay and benefits. Despite the plaintiff’s claims that he had not received this amount, the court rejected his assertion, stating “the uncontradicted evidence at trial was that the Plaintiff had received six weeks of pay at the time he was terminated.”
After deducting this payment and accounting for a 30 per cent withholding tax, the net amount owed to W.H.H. was set at $43,630.65. The court also awarded $3,833.76 in net benefits after tax, with the town required to remit the appropriate tax amounts to Canada Revenue Agency.
Legal proceedings marked by delays and misconduct allegations
The case was significantly complicated by mutual allegations of misconduct between the parties. W.H.H., who began representing himself in May 2021 after discharging his counsel, made serious allegations against the town’s legal counsel.
The former employee claimed the town’s lawyer had “hacked” into his computer and deleted files. He filed a complaint with the Law Society of the Northwest Territories, which was dismissed, and subsequently sought judicial review of that dismissal.
The court found these allegations were unfounded, noting that W.H.H. “formed the belief that counsel for the Town had hacked into his computer and improperly retrieved his emails because counsel for the Town, while communicating with the Plaintiff on trial issues, had included past emails from the court reporter confirming the scheduling of examinations.”
The court explained that W.H.H. failed to realize “that the emails either originated from counsel for the Town or were copied to counsel for the Town,” leading to his unfounded allegations.
Discovery examinations cancelled on short notice
The litigation faced several delays, including the cancellation of examinations for discovery in March 2021. W.H.H.’s then-counsel cancelled the examinations on the Friday before they were scheduled to begin, citing a preference for in-person rather than video examinations and concerns about COVID-19 travel restrictions.
The town incurred costs preparing for the examinations, with representatives travelling to Yellowknife to meet with counsel. However, the court acknowledged the challenging circumstances during the pandemic, noting that attending in person “would have required approval from the NWT’s Chief Public Health Officer.”
Settlement offers and costs considerations
Both parties exchanged settlement offers during the litigation. In March 2021, the town offered $21,517 representing two additional months of salary. W.H.H. countered with $60,000 plus an apology and letter of reference, giving the town only two days to respond.
In July 2022, the town repeated its original offer while W.H.H., now self-represented, increased his demand to $200,000.
The court noted that “neither party’s position represented a meaningful compromise from their original settlement position.”
Reduced costs award reflects conduct issues
Despite being the successful party, W.H.H. received a reduced costs award of $7,000 rather than the full amount he might otherwise have been entitled to receive.
The court explained that the reduced award reflected several factors: “The award reflects the fact that the Plaintiff’s approach to document production increased the cost to the Town of responding to the litigation. More significantly, the reduced costs award reflects the fact that the Plaintiff made unfounded allegations of misconduct on the part of Town representatives and counsel for the Town.”
The court said “these allegations are to be condemned and there should be a costs sanction to reflect that condemnation.”
Prejudgment interest maintained despite delays
The town requested that prejudgment interest be reduced or denied due to delays in the proceedings, but the court disagreed. The judge found that “overall, I do not believe that there has been such unreasonable delay in these proceedings to disentitle the Plaintiff from prejudgment interest.”
The court noted that neither party took meaningful steps to advance the litigation between 2018 and 2020, and that after W.H.H. began representing himself, “matters proceeded relatively promptly to trial.”
Prejudgment interest was awarded at $15,376.97, calculated at the Bank of Canada prime rate from the filing of the statement of claim.
The court’s final order directed payment of $69,841.38 to W.H.H., representing the combined total of net damages, benefits, prejudgment interest and costs. The town was also required to remit $20,341.89 to Canada Revenue Agency on the plaintiff’s behalf for tax obligations.
For more information, see Harris v Town of Hay River, 2025 NWTSC 33 (CanLII).
