Canadian Employment Law Today

February 17, 2016

Focuses on human resources law from a business perspective, featuring news and cases from the courts, in-depth articles on legal trends and insights from top employment lawyers across Canada.

Issue link: https://digital.hrreporter.com/i/637725

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 4 of 7

slurred speech, no difficulties with balance, or any other indications. e other allegations that followed — the customer complaint and the accusations that Volchoff was drunk at work and drove a company vehicle — were "third-hand hearsay" for which no details were given to Volchoff for him to respond to. Without anything specific to address, Volchoff could only continue to deny the allegations and there was little real evidence to support just cause for dismissal, said the court. e court also noted that none of Vol - choff 's staff complained to Volchoff before they allegedly complained to upper man- agement. In fact, as it turned out, the deal- ership's staff complained in June 2014 that Volchoff had changed Internet sales leads so he took them instead of distributing them to the sales staff. ere was no indication this complaint referred to Volchoff consuming alcohol during work hours, and some staff members that testified never had difficulties working with him. e court found there was no specific al - legations made by staff members that Vol- choff was intoxicated at work and Wright Auto Sales had no evidence beyond the smell of alcohol on Volchoff 's breath. Vol- choff had explained the reason for the smell and there was nothing indicating his ability to do his job was hindered, said the court. e court also found that if Wright's Auto Sales had a zero tolerance policy re - garding alcohol consumption during work hours, Volchoff wasn't given any informa- tion about it and it "at best was ambiguous." Volchoff was told to be responsible at work, which Volchoff understood and made sure he was, said the court. In addition, the court noted Volchoff was "a trusted employee whose work record was excellent" and "at no time was he warned that his job was in jeopardy or that his breach of this rule in the future could lead to his dismissal." e court determined Wright Auto Sales did not have sufficient evidence to prove it had just cause to dismiss Volchoff. In fact, there was no evidence Volchoff ever con - sumed alcohol during work hours other than on the weekly Wednesday meeting days. Volchoff only had two-and-a-half years of service at the dealership but held an im - portant position, so the court ruled he was entitled to five months' notice. After deduc- tions for Volchoff 's earnings from another job he found within the notice period, this amounted to $48,557.68. For more information see: • Volchoff v. Wright Auto Sales Inc., 2015 CarswellOnt 19856 (Ont. S.C.J.). Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2016 CREDIT: NATALIA VAN DONINCK/SHUTTERSTOCK February 17, 2016 | Canadian Employment Law Today 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.

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Canadian Employment Law Today - February 17, 2016