Canadian Employment Law Today

ally delivered a resignation letter to the board chairperson. e chairperson told him the letter was premature, but believed the resignation was an "admission of guilt." e board chairperson spoke to the cli- ent who had gone on the trip, who speci- fied that he had taken vacation time, reim- bursed his own expenses, and said for him it wasn't a business trip. e chairperson then spoke to the former executive direc- tor, who said he had supported the trip and there were legitimate reasons for it. He added there were no formal meetings or tours with facility operators, but it wasn't a retirement trip for him and he didn't believe it crossed any policy lines. After learning that Swidrovich and Antonishyn had been placed on administrative leave, the former executive director also wrote a letter to the city manager setting out his justification for the trip. Lofdahl completed his investigation and wrote a recommendation to the board that the 2011 trip wasn't a business trip but instead was a "celebration" of the previous executive director's retirement. Lofdahl maintained Antonishyn had been warned about the board's disapproval. However, he felt terminating both men would harm the facility's operation, so he recommend- ed they be informed that any future vio- lation of SPA policies would be met with disciplinary action. e board held a special meeting on Jan. 5, 2012, after reviewing Lofdahl's report. e chairperson said that after the inter- views, he didn't believe that the former ex- ecutive director had authorized the trip, as he still felt it was a personal trip. e board was also concerned about a lack of transparency in how the trip was planned and approved. After discussing the matter with the board, Lofdahl changed his mind and de- cided to dismiss both Swidrovich and An- tonishyn for dishonesty. Antonishyn was invited to either retire or resign, which he refused, so letters of termination were drawn up. e letters stated that the trip wasn't a business trip and both men charged personal expenses to the SPA, con- trary to SPA policy. Lofdahl also contacted police, who pro- ceeded with a fraud investigation but no charges were laid. Swidrovich and Antonishyn filed a wrongful dismissal suit, claiming moral and punitive damages stemming from ex- tra difficulty caused by media coverage of their terminations, which hurt their ability to find alternate employment. e Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench noted that the issue was not the va- lidity of the reasons Swidrovich and Anton- ishyn believed the trip was legitimate, but whether they had proper authorization to take it. e court found that throughout the investigation and dismissal of the two employees, Lofdahl and the SPA board "ig- nored one central, salient and indisputable fact — namely, that (the employees') imme- diate supervisor, authorized them to spon- sor and participate in the 2011 trip." e court also found that the SPA board believed the trip was wrong and the two employees knew that it wasn't accept- able conduct, as it wasn't for a valid busi- ness purpose as required under its policy on reimbursement of business expenses. However, the identification of "business purpose" was a matter of opinion that dif- fered between the board, Lofdahl, and the two employees, the court said. e court noted that under the previous executive director, Swidrovich and Anton- ishyn had "relatively free hand in deciding how it would meet the SPA's combined vision" to foster its business. ings may have changed when Lofdahl took over and wanted more transparency, but the trip in question was before his time. "I find it questionable for (Lofdahl) to have retrospectively applied his own stan- dards, as commendable as they may be, to practices that existed well before he arrived on the scene," said the court, adding that there was no evidence the previous execu- tive director breached any reporting obli- gations with regard to business trips. e board also found that the fact the cli- ent took vacation time for the trip was irrel- evant, as it was still possible to "do business or discuss business if the circumstance or so arises" with the client. In addition, there was nothing indicating Swidrovich and Antonishyn should have been aware that the trips were inappropri- ate. All of them were approved with no in- dication the board challenged them at any time. ere was no reason for them to think the 2011 trip was any less appropriate than the previous two trips, said the court. Finally, the court also found the two em- ployees were not told the board didn't ap- prove of the trip. Swidrovich's conversation with the board member at the retirement party gave no indication of this, and Lof- dahl's understanding of it was incorrect. As a result, the board determined both em- ployees were wrongfully dismissed. e SPA was ordered to pay Swidrov- ich damages equal to 20 months' pay and benefits and Antonishyn 24 months' pay and benefits. e court denied any claim for moral or punitive damages as it found the employer's approach to the matter, while "seriously flawed" and "poorly ar- ticulated," didn't amount to bad faith or reprehensible conduct. For more information see: • Swidrovich v. Saskatchewan Place Assn. Inc., 2019 CarswellSask 107 (Sask. Q.B.). Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2019 April 3, 2019 | Canadian Employment Law Today CREDIT: ADAM VILIMEK/SHUTTERSTOCK ABOUT THE AUTHOR Jeffrey R. Smith Jeffrey R. Smith is the editor of Canadian Employment Law Today. He can be reached at jeffrey.r.smith@thomsonreuters.com, or visit www.employmentlawtoday.com for more information.

• Cover