Question

In Trites v Renin Corp. the court held that there is no constructive dismissal where a temporary layoff has been rolled out in accordance with Ontario’s Employment Standards Act. Subsequent cases in Ontario have

a	confirmed this principle
b	confirmed this principle but only as long as the employer acted reasonably and in good faith in placing the employee on temporary layoff
c	overturned this principle by findng that a temporary layoff may constitute constructive dismissal even where the employer complies with the requirements of Ontario’s Employment Standards Act
d	overturned this principle in some cases while confirming it in others, depending on the specific facts of the case

Answer 1

In Trites v Renin Corp. the court held that there is no constructive dismissal where a temporary layoff has been rolled out in accordance with Ontario’s Employment Standards Act. Subsequent cases in Ontario have overturned this principle by finding that a temporary layoff may constitute constructive dismissal even where the employer complies with the requirements of Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, i.e. option C

The decision in the famous Trites v Renin Corp. Justice Moore held that:

“There is no room remaining at law for a common law finding of constructive dismissal in circumstances where a temporary layoff has been rolled out in accordance with the terms of the ESA.” After the strange decision this proposition was often termed as the "Trites proposition".

But recently in the subsequent cases the superior Court Declines to Follow Trites v. Renin Corp.

Justice James (who rejected the Trites v. Renin Corp.’s decision) reviewed the Stolze and Chen case, as well as McLean v. The Raywal Limited Partnership, as well as the text "Employment Law in Canada", and concluded that these were out of step with Trites.

He expressly said that to the extent that the decision of Moore J. in Trites stands for the proposition that the common law conditions precedent to a lawful layoff have been completely displaced by the ESA, I respectfully disagree.

Since the other options in MCQ are abruptly incorrect without any legal term to explain there isn’t any need to explain the rest of the options.