When an worker termination is performed, most employers concentrate on figuring out contractual severance entitlements and guaranteeing compliance with statutory necessities. In so doing, their goal is to restrict any potential claims for wrongful dismissal. Against this, much less thought tends to be given to return of property. This isn’t an unreasonable state of affairs, as generally, return of property (whether or not it’s employer-owned belongings or worker private results) happens with little fuss. However what occurs when employers encounter intransigent former workers who refuse to return their property?
This was the very state of affairs one Ottawa-based employer just lately encountered. In a quick resolution from July 2024, Justice Kaufman dominated on a movement involving a former employee who refused to return two employer-owned autos after his employment had been terminated.
The employee had been employed for 38 years by a small family-run enterprise and most just lately served as its Normal Supervisor. The employer was an organization whose enterprise concerned offering transportation providers to and from the Ottawa Airport. To assist facilitate the worker’s duties, the employer supplied him with company-owned autos and allowed use of the identical for each work and private causes.
This case endured till July 20, 2023, at which period the employee was summarily dismissed after his employer uncovered (what it deemed to be) monetary irregularities.
Publish-dismissal car restoration
Following the employee’s dismissal, a dispute arose as to what ought to occur along with his two company-provided autos.
In response to the employer’s calls for to return its property, the employee refused and asserted wrongful dismissal. In so doing, he made the next arguments in defence of his place: 1) the shareholder decision which led to his dismissal was obtained below false pretenses; 2) a shareholder of the corporate (the employee’s mom) had said she had no objection to the employee’s stepdaughter persevering with to make use of an employer-owned car on a go-forward foundation; and three) he must be entitled to make use of his company-issued autos for an affordable interval post-dismissal, as car use was a part of his common compensation package deal.
Justice Kaufman dismissed all three of those arguments in brief order. To that finish, the Court docket famous:
- the employee had not supplied any proof to substantiate his allegation of impropriety in regards to the shareholder decision which led to his dismissal;
- the employee’s mom was not an lively shareholder of the corporate, her unsworn letter supplied to the Court docket was rumour, and this letter solely addressed use of one of many two autos in dispute; and
- any declare of wrongful dismissal was untimely, notably because the employee had but to even start litigation on this regard.
Justice Kaufman additionally made the next insightful feedback concerning an employer’s proper to recuperate its property post-employment, even in conditions the place an worker has asserted wrongful dismissal:
The defendant additional asserts that his employment was wrongfully terminated and that he could be entitled to the good thing about these automobiles, which have been advantages of his employment, throughout the interval of cheap discover. The defendant intends to start an motion for wrongful dismissal.
If the defendant is profitable in his wrongful dismissal motion, he could also be compensated for the worth of any employment advantages he would have loved throughout the cheap discover interval, however he’s not entitled to make use of the autos earlier than proving his case for wrongful dismissal, not to mention earlier than commencing such an motion. [emphasis added]
In the long run, the employee was ordered to return each company-owned autos in his possession. He was additionally hit with a $10,000.00 prices award payable in favour of the employer.
Concerning prices, Justice Kaufman pointily noticed that the employee had disregarded an earlier court-order that he return his two company-owned autos (which occurred within the context of an interlocutory injunction movement heard on December 6, 2023). This compelled the employer to convey a separate, second, movement to recuperate its property pursuant to Rule 44 of the Guidelines of Civil Process. The Court docket was not impressed that such a second movement was required, and accordingly, issued a hefty prices award for what was in any other case a comparatively easy matter.
Takeaway
Justice Kaufman’s resolution is a pointy reminder that, no matter any claims of wrongful dismissal that staff could have, workers will not be presumptively entitled to ongoing possession and use of employer property post-dismissal. As an alternative, upon route, former staff should return any and all employer property of their possession. This stays the case even when the employee could in the end be capable to show a loss stemming from lack of ability to make use of employer property as soon as a declare for wrongful dismissal has been litigated. Employers are due to this fact in a robust place to recuperate property post-dismissal and mustn’t hesitate to implement their rights on this regard even when confronted with recalcitrant workers.
