[Franklin Hammond / Images.com] Click here to see full sized version.

Working out of the Toronto area offices of Brook Crompton North America, 22-year company veteran Dolores Adjemian had come to rely on her job’s security. As the IT administrator and accounting clerk, Adjemian believed her job was safe. But life has many surprises. A victim of the recent economic maelstrom, Adjemian walked into work on the morning of Jan. 24, 2008 and was precipitously fired. She was then handed a cheque for four months pay and told to leave.

As she was dismissed without cause and given what she viewed was a pitiful offer of severance, Adjemian quickly sued Brook Crompton for wrongful dismissal. At 47 years of age and with 22 years of tenure with her ex-employer, Adjemian believed she was entitled to at least 16 months pay.

Having relied on a consistent income for many years, Adjemian couldn’t afford to wait for a trial. Instead of following the usual course of conduct in a wrongful dismissal case, where most files meander through the court system, mandatory mediation and other pre-trial delays, Adjemian immediately brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing that her case was open and shut. Brook Crompton disagreed.

Believing that the adequacy of Adjemian’s efforts to find other work was a genuine issue for trial, Brook Crompton opposed the appropriateness of the motion for summary judgment, suggesting that routine wrongful dismissal cases could never be decided on a motion. It argued that the adequacy of the plaintiff’s efforts to mitigate her damages by finding other work, as well as the appropriate period of reasonable notice, raised genuine issues requiring a trial.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Perell wasn’t convinced. Adjemian had deliberately opted to advance her action under the rules of simplified procedure in order to take advantage of the less stringent test for summary judgment. Whether her efforts to find other work were sufficient could easily be disposed of without a trial by simply reviewing her documentary evidence.

Until this ruling, there had been ambiguity in the jurisprudence. Canadian courts grappled with the appropriateness of awarding summary judgment in employment law cases. The legal issues of the period of reasonable notice and awarding damages before that notice period expired were often seen as factors militating in favour of a full trial.

Finding that Adjemian had been wrongfully dismissed and that she was indeed entitled to 16 months notice, Justice Perell’s decision suggests that in typical wrongful dismissal cases, a motion for summary judgment instead of a trial may be the optimal way to proceed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently agreed, upholding Justice Perell’s decision on all grounds (Adjemian v. Brook Crompton North America, [2008] O.J. No. 5230).

Most employers resist motions for summary judgment in wrongful dismissal cases. As the motion will often be heard long before the expiration of the notice period, employees may have it both ways — once they obtain judgment, there will be little incentive to actively search for other work. However, Adjemian suggests employers may no longer have a choice, for the following reasons.

Damages: Rather than ordering any damages to be paid as a lump sum, recent decisions suggest that where judgments come so quickly that plaintiffs still have an obligation to seek other work, the courts can impose a trust on the award, requiring plaintiffs to detail those efforts and then account for any income from other employment. By doing so,  employers can satisfy themselves that plaintiffs have properly mitigated, even though the case has already been heard.

Policy: In Papaschase Indian Band No. 136 v. Canada (Attorney General), [2008] S.C.J. No. 14 (S.C.C.), the Supreme Court of Canada recently encouraged motions judges to grant summary judgment where the facts of the claim suggest it should be easily resolved, in order to save the parties and the court from expending more significant resources on trials.

Strategy: Most wrongful dismissal disputes do not involve novel issues of law or comprehensive evidentiary records. Yet they tend to drag on because one side or the other refuses to act reasonably or acknowledge where the facts fail to support their claim. Threatening a motion for summary judgment can be a powerful persuader in bringing parties to the bargaining table — or quickly bring them to court.

With the mass restructuring of Canadian workplaces well underway, Adjemian serves as a welcome precedent for both employees and employers who are looking for a speedy method to resolve straightforward termination disputes.

Daniel Lublin is the managing partner of Whitten & Lublin LLP, practising exclusively in the area of employment law. He was counsel to the plaintiff in Adjemian.