Project #63162 - ACTG 1P71- Assignment #2














Please read the attached fact situation involving Kate Connors and Specialty Detergent.




Kate Connors has hired a lawyer and commenced a lawsuit against Specialty Detergent requesting damages for wrongful dismissal.  Specialty Detergent filed a Defence denying the claim.




You are a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and have been assigned to hear and decide the case.  The trial extends over three days and the evidence that you hear is set out in the attached document.




Your task is to write the decision in this case.  The written decision must be no longer than 1,000 words (5 pages double-spaced).  Please note that this is a strict word limit, not to be exceeded for any reason.




In writing your decision you will need to make sure that you:




  1. refer to the relevant facts;

  2. identify the relevant legal issues;

  3. determine, describe and evaluate the legal basis for Kate’s claim;

  4. determine, describe and evaluate the legal basis for Specialty Detergent’s defence;

  5. identify the relevant law; and

  6. apply the law to the facts of the case and come to a persuasive and well reasoned decision.


    The applicable law is limited to the employment law material in the text and in last weeks lecture.  You are not required to refer to any specific cases to your decision, but may refer to any of the cases referenced in the employment law chapter in the text.


    This assignment is worth 10% of your final mark and will be due at the beginning of your seminar scheduled for the week of March 23rd.






Kate Connors was a full time sales representative for a small detergent manufacturer, Specialty Detergent.  Specialty Detergent was a family business owned by Bob and Martha Parker.  Bob and Martha’s son, Ted Parker, was the company’s sales manager and supervised Kate.




Kate was one of three sales representatives at the company.  She had been employed there for 14 years and was 55 years old.




Kate earned $56,500 per year and also received company health care benefits (paid for by the company).




Kate did not have a written contract with the company.  Last year she had asked Ted if she could be treated as self employed (she wanted to write off some deductions for income tax) and he said “sure, why not”.  So, starting in July she began remitting her own income tax and planned to claim some other deductions on her 2014 taxes.  Ted allowed her to continue to receive company benefits.  Every month, Kate rendered an invoice to the company for the same amount she had previously been making. 




The other two sales representatives were employees and earned about the same as Kate.  Kate worked the same amount of hours as the other sales representatives, but always started a little earlier (8:30 instead of 9) and left a little earlier (4:30 instead  of 5).  These hours never bothered Ted, who let her do this for many years.




Kate was well liked by the company and the clients she served and apart from one incident in 2001 (she had slept in and came into work 10 minutes late – Ted verbally warned her not to do it again “or else”) she had no performance problems.




On March the 17th 2013 Kate, who usually does not drink, went out to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day with some friends.  The next day (Monday the 18th) she was hung over and could not get out of bed at her usual time.  On her way to work she pulled over and called Ted on his cell phone. She said “Ted, I can’t get my car to start, I am going to be a little late for work this morning”.  Ted said “no problem, that kind of thing happens to everyone just do the best you can to get here”.  Kate ended up being 35 minutes late for work.




Later that morning Ted overheard Kate talking to the other Sales Representatives at the photocopier.  He heard her say that the real reason she was late was because she partied too hard at Maloney’s Pub the night before and got “totally wasted”.  Ted also heard her say that she had lied to Ted on the phone about the reason for being late.  Ted did not raise the issue with Kate, but wrote down exactly what he heard her say.  Initially he was very upset and considered firing Kate, however, Ted got very busy and did not have time to address the issue.




About a month later, Specialty Detergent’s business slowed right down – the company had lost three of its major customers.  Ted had to make some changes and let some people go. 




Kate heard that the company had let another sales representative (Freddie) go just yesterday.  She heard that Freddie (who had been there 15 years) was not too upset because he received what he felt was a vary fair severance package that consisted of 12 months pay and benefits. 




On April 15th, Kate was called into Ted’s office.  He advised her that business was slow and the company had to let her go.  When Kate asked for the particulars of her severance package, Ted responded “we owe you nothing because you are not an employee, and besides you were dishonest with me when you lied about the reason for being late on March 18th - how dare you even raise the issue of a severance payment!”.  Ted immediately called security (a large guy who worked in shipping nicknamed the Hulk) and told him to immediately escort Kate off the property, which he did.




For the first six months after being fired, Kate did not look for a job.  When her friends pointed out some opportunities that she might be well suited for she said “no, I am pretty sad about having been fired, and I am starting to really like daytime television”.  Kate eventually sent out some resumes and after being unemployed for a total of 8 months, found a sales job with one of Specialty Detergent’s competitors.  Kate decided to accept the job even though it paid less (about $35,000 a year with no benefits) than her prior job.




Kate’s lawyers have since started a claim for wrongful dismissal.  They have called her employment termination “really, really outrageous” and asked the Court to award Kate $500,000 and her legal costs.  Specialty Detergent has disputed the claim saying there is no basis for the claim and calling it “a bunch of garbage and a pile of non-sense”.




You must decide if Kate’s claim should succeed and if so, what (if anything) should be awarded.






Subject Law
Due By (Pacific Time) 03/23/2015 06:00 pm
Report DMCA

Chat Now!

out of 1971 reviews

Chat Now!

out of 766 reviews

Chat Now!

out of 1164 reviews

Chat Now!

out of 721 reviews

Chat Now!

out of 1600 reviews

Chat Now!

out of 770 reviews

Chat Now!

out of 766 reviews

Chat Now!

out of 680 reviews
All Rights Reserved. Copyright by - Copyright Policy