Canadian Lawyer

Kenneth Alexander, counsel for employer Karen Cunningham, agreed it's it is only in very exceptional circumstanc- es that a situation amounts to just cause for dismissal without the employer having to pay something. Alexander said this decision may give difficult for lawyers to advise clients in this area. "It' s a moving target," he said, adding letter provided cause for immediate ter- mination. Valin had concluded there was just cause and the appeal court agreed. George Vassos, of Kuretzky Vassos professionals pause before they trash their bosses. This case go back to 2002, when Bennett, a 2001 call, was looking for a job after being out of work for five months. On July 15, 2002, Bennett began work- ing for Cunningham, a sole family law practitioner. At the time, Bennett had little experience in family law and expressed concerns with her work. Steps were taken to address them in August and November. On Dec. 21, 2002, Bennett gave Cun- ningham a four-page letter that laid out her nine areas of concern with the job. Cunningham left on vacation and, when she returned Jan. 6, 2003, fired Bennett. The trial judge found the letter provided a sufficient basis to conclude Bennett was insolent to the extent that the employment relationship could no longer be main- tained. The judge stated that "[t]he overall tone of the letter was anything but courte- ous. It was critical. It was accusatory. It was disrespectful. The letter suggested that Ms. Cunningham was disorganized, incompe- tent, dishonest, and negligent. "I find that the contents and tone of the letter constituted serious misconduct on the part of Ms. Bennett," wrote Superior Court Justice George T. Valin. "The inso- lence was not reconcilable with maintain- ing the employment relationship. In the circumstances, Ms. Cunningham had just cause for terminating the services of Ms. Bennett without notice. The Divisional Court overturned Val- in's decision, finding he erred in failing " to apply the contextual approach assess- ment, which involves looking at the cir- cumstances surrounding the conduct and the nature or degree of the conduct. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the Divisional Court, holding the trial judge' reasons demonstrated he did apply the contextual approach and zeroed in on the central question, which was whether the s would end right there. "[H]ow can you possibly maintain a relationship when s no doubt the relationship Henderson LLP, said if a young lawyer called his honesty and integrity in to question, there' someone has called you dishonest and negligent?" Vassos says the general prop- osition remains that you usually need more than one act of misconduct, but in the right case, a single incident can con- stitute just cause. He notes that employees don't have to cross the line by 1,000 miles; they just have to cross the line. — SIOBHAN MCCLELLAND 19% You told us you'd like to work more efficiently. How's faster sound? Quicklaw ® ® Focus on delivering work for your clients, not switching between programs. Now, when you're creating a Word document or working in Outlook® for Microsoft Office. , you can pull content directly from Quicklaw, the open web and your computer with intuitive simplicity and reduce the time required to conduct background research by up to 19%*. We've teamed with Microsoft to bring this innovation to our customers' existing workflow processes. It's just one example of intuitive tools created for legal minds, by legal minds. Another LexisNexis® innovation that enables better outcomes. For more information go to www.lexisnexis.ca/quicklaw-office *A study conducted in the United States in July 2011 by KS&R and CDI Market Research, in conjunction with National Legal Research Group (NLRG), involved 600 time-test observations with multiple legal scenarios and documents. LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under licence. Quicklaw is a registered trademark of LexisNexis Canada Inc. Microsoft and Outlook are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries. Other products or services may be trademarks, registered trademarks or service marks of their respective companies. © 2012 LexisNexis Canada Inc. All rights reserved. QLMO-Ad-08/12 www.CANADIAN Lawyermag.com OCTO BER 2012 9 ntitled-4 1 12-09-06 2:38 PM

• Cover