r v. Citco, 2013 NSSM 2

SCCH 376359 IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Cite as: Meagher v. Citco (Canada) Inc., 2013 NSSM 2 BETWEEN Ruth Meagher CLAIMANT -and- Citco (Canada) Inc. DEFENDANT Heard: January 3, 2013 Decision: January 3, 2013 Adjudicator: David TR Parker The claimant was self-represented The Defendant was represented by Kyle MacIsaac and Articled Clerk Sarah McInnes -This case involves employment contracts and limiting notice periods or pay in lieu thereof- Cases referred to regarding Notice Periods: Neely v. State Group Limited [1997] O.J. No. 1549 Hall v. Canadian Corporate Management Co. [1984] O.J.

No. 61 McNevan v. AmeriCredit Corp. [2008] O.J. 5081 Fisher v. Calgary(City) [1986] AJ No. 908 Cases referred to regarding contracts of employment: Machtinger v. HOJ Industries Limited (SCC), [1992] 1 SCR 986

Lloyd v. Oracle Corp. Canada [2004] O.J. No. 1806 McKay v. LightRoom F/X Inc. 2009 BCPC 321 , [2009] BCJ No. 2059 Clarke v. Insight Components(Canada) Inc. 2008 ONCA 837 , [2008] O.J. No. 5025 Craig Hollet v. Best Buy Canada Limited(Future Shop) SCCH 213785 DECISION and ORDER Oral Decision-this case came before the Small Claims Court in Halifax, Nova Scotia on January 3, 2013. This case involved the dismissal of the claimant by the defendant company. The claimant commenced her employment on March 14,2011 with the defendant company in a senior position; vice president of human resources and training.

In September 2012 the claimantwas dismissed from her employment. The claimant’s argument was that she was dismissed from her employment without just cause and she should have received a longernotice period or pay in lieu thereof from the defendant employer. She believed she should have received somewhere between 6 to 9months’ notice and was requesting the court to consider 16 weeks’ notice as the applicable notice period in this circumstance. The claimant applied for employment with the defendant company in the area human resources and ultimately was hired as a vicepresident in that area.

She negotiated an employment contract with the company which was a standard employment contract for othercompany employees. While working with the defendant company she dealt with several employees and these particular employmentcontracts and was well aware of the meaning of the terms and conditions contained in the employment contracts. The claimant was alsotrained in this area and new all before she entered into the contract typical terms and conditions of employment contracts.

One of the terms and conditions of the contract read as follows: “In the unhappy event of cessation of your employment by Citco, other than in the case of just cause for termination, you will beprovided with the minimum notice required by the Nova Scotia Labour Standards Code.

You agree that such notice, or paymentin lieu thereof, fully satisfies any and all claims, causes or action, complaints that you might have against Citco, its subsidiaries,affiliates and each of their respective officers, directors, employees, servants, agents and assigns, jointly and severally, respectingtermination notice, pay in lieu thereof, severance pay or damages from wrongful dismissal.” The claimant felt that she was entitled to a longer notice period pursuant to the common-law and she presented the court with a numberof cases in her submissions.

I agree with the claimant that the common-law does provide notice periods that may be longer than thenotice periods provided in the Labour standards legislation. However employment contracts may contain and do contain specific periodsof notice which can specify that the notice is in conformity with minimum labor standards legislation. In this case Labour StandardsCode. R.S., c. 246, s. 1. The contract of employment cannot specify terms or conditions that are less than the labor standards legislationbut rather as stated, in conformity with the labour standards legislation.

Provided however that the notice Period provided to the claimantis not unconscionable in all the circumstances of a particular case. In this case the corporate defendant met the minimum standards asallowed pursuant to the contract of employment with the claimant and based on the circumstances of the claimant’s situation such as ashort period of time working with the defendant, the relatively young age of the claimant, the possibility of other employment the noticeperiod was not unconscionable. For all these reasons I will dismiss the claim against the defendant.

Is Therefore Ordered That the claim against the defendant be dismissed with no order as to costs. Dated at Halifax this 16 th day of January 2013