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.
