Canadian Employment Law Today

Canadian HR Reporter, 2020 ever, the PR firm that was Fedorchuk's client told Fedorchuk that it was ready to hand the project over to QuadReal's marketing depart- ment, but Fedorchuk said she couldn't work with QuadReal directly. In November 2017, QuadReal formally re- quested that Fedorchuk be its account repre- sentative on all orders placed through Image Group, as it wanted to unify its promotional activity with the company. Image Group had no alternative but to change the QuadReal ac- count to Fedorchuk, which devasted Perron. Image Group proposed some options to help with the transition, such as keeping Perron as the representative for individual properties involved with QuadReal. Perron declined and resigned from Image Group on Dec. 13, 2017. Image Group sent letters to her clients offering the services of another representative if they chose to remain with Image Group, although Perron continued to sell promotional products to long-time cli- ents including Bentall Kennedy. Constructive dismissal claim Perron claimed she was constructively dis- missed by the takeover of her biggest account by Fedorchuk and Image Group's failure to follow its client protection policies. The B.C. Supreme Court stated that for constructive dismissal to occur, the employ- er must unilaterally change the employment contract — as long as there is no express or implied term that gives the employer author- ity to make the change — and "a reasonable person in the same situation as the employee would have felt that the essential terms of the employment contract were being sub- stantially changed." Perron claimed that Image Group breached the account conflicts policy — and, therefore, the employment contract under which she started employment with Image Group — when Fedorchuk was allowed to continue with the QuadReal project through the PR firm client even though she hadn't any sales to the PR firm for more than two years prior. However, the court found that, while the policy was a term of Perron's em- ployment, she misinterpreted it. Perron be- lieved it was an ongoing term, but in fact it was intended to apply only when she first joined the company, said the court. The court noted that the policy addressed conflicts "for other accounts that you and Im- age Group have," drawing a distinction be- tween Perron's clients when she joined and Image Group's clients for the purpose of re- solving those conflicts. As a result, there was no breach when Image Group didn't transfer the PR agency account and its related Quad- Real project to Perron, said the court. "In my opinion, the account conflicts term was never intended to apply to the period after the conflicts between Ms. Per- ron's accounts and Image Group's accounts were resolved when Ms. Perron joined Image Group," said the court. "Rather, the purpose of the account conflicts term was to resolve any conflicts that existed between a new rep- resentative joining Image Group and Image Group's existing clients." The court also found that Image Group didn't breach its client protection term be- cause the PR agency was listed in Image Group's database as Fedorchuk's client and had been for years. The lack of sales prior to the QuadReal project had no bearing on ownership of the account because there was no dormant account list or policy making it "up for grabs," the court said. There was also no evidence that Image Group or Fedorchuk acted in bad faith or that Fedorchuk ever interacted with Perron's client, Bentall Kennedy/QuadReal. The only business was through an intermediary — the PR agency that was Fedorchuk's client — and it was that client that recommended Quad- Real request to work with Fedorchuk, said the court. The court dismissed Perron's claim of con- structive dismissal. For more information, see: • Perron v. IG Image Group Inc., 2020 BCSC 171 (B.C. S.C.). May 20, 2020 | Canadian Employment Law Today CREDIT: OONAL ISTOCK ABOUT THE AUTHOR Jeffrey R. Smith Jeffrey R. Smith is the editor of Canadian Employment Law Today. He can be reached at jeffrey.smith@keymedia.com, or visit www.employmentlawtoday.com for more information.

• Cover