WALLACE-AWARDS.com - Searchable Database for Canada's Employment Lawyer Community, containing wallace awards

Jack Wallace was hired in June of 1972 by a printing company, "Public Press", which had determined to update its operations and expand its volume of commercial printing. Wallace had many years experience in this business, 25 to be exact, with a competitor that had used the same type of web press being used by UGG.

At the time of his hiring, Wallace was 45 years of age. He requested and received assurances of job security, and fair treatment as to his employment and renumeration. These commitments were given. He was told that if he did perform as expected, he would have a job until retirement.

He was successful, and was top salesman in the company for each year of his employment, until his termination in August of 1986, approximately 14 years later at age 59. No reason for termination was given.

When Wallace sued, the company met his claim with allegations of just cause. This plea was made until the trial commenced when it was withdrawn. The termination and the allegations of cause made against him caused him real emotional harm.

Step 1: The Trial
The trial judge, Lockwood, J., awarded Jack Wallace 24 months notice, then considered the highest likely sum for a severance award. Also the trial judge awarded $15,000 in aggravated damages, usually given as emotional suffering award, in both contract and tort. No punitive damages were given.

Step 2: The Manitoba Court of Appeal
On appeal, the 24 month award was reduced to 15 months. The aggravated award was set aside.

Step 3: Supreme Court of Canada
As the ending is well known, there no point in keeping it to the finale. The Supreme Court restored the trial judge's award of 24 months. No aggravated or punitive sums were granted.

Ironically Wallace's main submission in the Supreme Court failed. The submission had been made that a new tort of "bad faith discharge" should be given judicial recognition, either in contract or tort.

The court was quick to reject this proposition. It did however, inject into the employment relationship the requirement of good faith conduct at the time of termination, the breach of which, it determined, will cause the "normal" notice period to be increased.

In passing the court did speak of the "special relationship" which governs the parties to an employment relationship. This will likely of some consequence to future extrapolations of this decision. ( par 90 )

Also the court spoke of the evident lack of bargaining power inherent in the relationship. ( par 91 - 93 )
 

At the time of termination, the court determined, the employee is at his most vulnerable point, and hence most in need of protection. ( par 95) The law must encourage conduct which minimizes such damage and dislocation, both economic and personal. Accordingly employers must be held to an obligation of good faith and fair dealing, the violation of which will heighten the notice period.

Later appellate and trial courts have tended to award only ( as is now referenced ) "Wallace" increments rather than a separate claim for emotional distress damages. Justice Iacobucci added, however, these words to same issue:


"However, in my view the intangible injuries are sufficient to merit compensation
in and of themselves. I recognize that bad faith conduct which affects employment
prospects may be worthy of considerably more compensation than that which does not, but in both cases damage has resulted that should be compensable. ( par 104)"

Punitive damages were not really discussed comprehensively in Wallace, notwithstanding the plaintiff's request for this award. The Court stated the well known test of a deterrent as a punishment to harsh, vindictive and malicious conduct and also the presence of an independently actionable wrong. The claim had been dismissed by both courts below and was not given much serious chance of success, given the findings of fact made below.

It is to be noted that there is no suggestion in Wallace that bad faith conduct will allow for only the notice period adjustment and will not also support a punitive award, as is the present theme prevalent in subsequent decisions.


A Service Provided by the Law Offices of David Harris, LL.B.  ::  www.wrongful-dismissal.com