Canadian Employment Law Today

June 21, 2017

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/835764

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 4 of 7

of questions pre-printed on a form. In re- sponse to these questions, Stokes said Papp had been let go because "he was not needed anymore and a performance and attitude is- sue." He also said the company wasn't pleased with Papp's work, he didn't work well in a team setting — "he has a chip" — he didn't get along with his co-workers, and when asked if he would re-hire Papp, Stokes said, "no way." Ernest Stokes later testified it bothered him that his interviewer didn't seem to be interested in Papp's technical capabilities and wasn't expecting such a "mechanical" conversation, saying he wasn't given a chance to elaborate on any of his answers. He agreed that he said Papp didn't get along well with co-workers but he himself had no problem with Papp. He also agreed he said he wouldn't re-hire Papp if he couldn't get along with other staff. Based on the reference provided by Ernest Stokes, the Yukon government decided not to hire Papp. ey were satisfied with Papp's technical abilities, but the reference check indicated he wouldn't be a good fit for the job. Papp sued SEC for wrongful dismissal (seeking $65,000 in damages), defamation (seeking $500,000), and more than $200,000 in punitive, exemplary and aggravated dam - ages for intentional infliction of mental suf- fering. e court agreed with Papp that Ernest Stokes' comments to his prospective employ- er were defamatory, "in the sense that they would tend to lower Adam Papp's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person" and they were communicated to at least one person other than Papp. However, the court found there was "a reasonable basis" to support the argument that what Stokes said was true. While there was no formal complaint, re - ports from SEC employees and both Ernest and Aaron Stokes indicated Papp was diffi- cult to work with because of a poor attitude. His inability to work well in a team environ- ment was evident from both his personality clashes with Aaron Stokes and his co-work- ers, the court said. e court also found that the context of the reference check provided Ernest Stokes with "qualified privilege" and Stokes genu - inely believed what he said to be true — there was no malice involved. e court determined that Ernest Stokes' statements to Papp's prospective employer did not qualify as defamation and provided no basis for punitive, exemplary, or aggra - vated damages or for intentional infliction of mental suffering. However, the court supported Papp's claim of wrongful dismissal and found Papp was entitled to four months' pay in lieu of no - tice, after considering the specialized nature of his work, his relatively young age — mid 30s — and less than three years of service. Minus the amount Papp had already been paid, SEC was ordered to pay Papp $17,192.57 for wrongful dismissal. For more information see: •Papp v. Stokes, 2017 ONSC 2357 (Ont. S.C.J.). Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2017 June 21, 2017 | Canadian Employment Law Today CREDIT: SINSEEHO/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.

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Canadian Employment Law Today - June 21, 2017