CAN’T SHACKLE FORMER EMPLOYER WITH THE COST.

cannot be a duty to take such steps as will reduce the claim against the defaulting former employer but must be a duty to take such steps as a reasonable person in the dismissed employee’s position would take in his own interests — to maintain his income and his position ... the former employer cannot have any right to expect that the former employee will accept lower-paying alternate employment with doubtful prospects, and then sue for the difference ...”

Justice Steeves found that, while Schinnerl assuredly could negotiate a change to the offer from full-time to part-time, by turning down full-time work while seeking damages for her dismissal “she is essentially claiming that her former employer should pay for part of her continuing education.” Although the education “commenced with her job with (the employer she was suing), its obligation to contribute ended with her dismissal.”

For the same reasons, the court noted that, while a dismissed employee may elect to take further training after being terminated, it cannot shackle its former employer with the cost. Let there be no misapprehension.

Wrongful dismissal is never a boondoggle. It is a necessary and important aid to Canadian employees who have been left without income through no fault of their own.

But judgments are intended by the courts as a form of limited insurance against unemployment up to a maximum period, not an opportunity to improve yourself at your employer’s expense. Those employees who limit their inquiries to higher positions or remuneration will suffer a sorry fate when the court’s judgment comes.