Question

explain the case Letendre v Deines Micro- Film Services Ltd , 2001 ABQB 26 according to employment law on the basis of termination

Answer 1

After that it is came into notice of the owner that Letendre had committed a fraud on the company's insurance company two years before his termination . The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the cause alleged at the time of dismissal did not warrant summary dismissal - The owner had not made it clear to Letendre that his behaviour was unacceptable and would result in termination - Given the owner's difficulties in communicating with Letendre, the matter should have been communicated in writing - The failure to warn and ongoing negotiations respecting Letendre becoming a partner constituted condonation .However, the revelation of Letendre's insurance fraud combined with his false testimony at trial fundamentally damaged the relationship of trust and justified Letendre's termination .The court provisionally assessed damages based on a 16 month notice period.

After this it is defined that an employer sought to rely upon post-termination conduct to constitute cause for a dismissal - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the post-termination conduct did not breach the employment agreement and refused to consider it when determining whether there was a wrongful dismissal .The court stated that "post-termination conduct may be relevant to characterizing or explaining pre-dismissal conduct, but it may not be relied on as cause for the dismissal. This is because an employer must prove a breach of the contract of employment to justify summary dismissal, but if the conduct occurs after termination, it cannot breach the contract, as it is already terminated.