February 13, 2025 from HR Reporter
A recent Ontario court decision highlights the importance of clear evidence of resignation in wrongful dismissal claims. The case involved a veterinarian at the Sharon Veterinary Clinic who claimed wrongful or constructive dismissal after refusing to return to work over concerns about a former client’s behavior. The court, however, found that her actions amounted to resignation, dismissing her claim.
Background: Incident at the Veterinary Clinic
The worker was employed as a veterinarian at the Sharon Veterinary Clinic in Ontario for 16 years, from 2000 to 2016. The incident that led to the dispute occurred in August 2020, when the clinic’s owner agreed to look after a client’s cat. Unfortunately, the cat escaped from the clinic, and the owner accepted responsibility.
On August 5, the client’s partner made threats against clinic staff, prompting the owner to contact the police. The police warned the man to stay away from the clinic and its employees, and the clinic owner took several steps to ensure workplace safety:
- She informed the staff that no services were to be provided to the client or her partner, noting this in the client’s file.
- She contacted the security alarm company to ensure the police would be called immediately if an alarm was triggered.
The Worker’s Absence and Request for a Termination Letter
The worker continued her regular full-time duties for about two weeks following the incident. However, on August 18, she informed the clinic owner that she would be absent that week due to the passing of her father-in-law.
On August 21, she visited the clinic and provided a doctor’s note stating that she was unable to return to work “because of an incident which happened at her workplace” and that she would be unable to return until the issue was resolved.
The worker also requested that the owner formally terminate the client’s relationship with the clinic by sending a letter to the client’s partner.
The Owner’s Response and Communication Breakdown
On August 28, the clinic’s bookkeeper suggested that the owner check in with the worker. During the call, the worker asked if the termination letter had been sent. When the owner said she didn’t intend to send a letter, believing it would inflame the situation, the worker responded that she wouldn’t return to the clinic unless the letter was sent.
The owner then asked the worker to return her keys to the clinic. After the call, the worker told the bookkeeper that she had been fired, but the owner maintained that this was not the case.
On September 3, the owner sent a letter to the worker stating that the former client’s partner had been spoken to by both the clinic and the police and that there was minimal risk to the worker. The letter requested that the worker confirm when she would be returning.
Claim of Wrongful or Constructive Dismissal
The worker did not respond directly to the letter. Instead, her lawyer sent a letter on September 29 alleging wrongful or constructive dismissal and claiming 24 months’ notice and moral damages for mental distress.
The worker argued that her demand for a termination letter was justified by the doctor’s note and that the owner’s request for her keys was evidence that she had been fired.
Court Decision: No Wrongful or Constructive Dismissal
The court determined that the termination letter requested by the worker was not a reasonable requirement for her return to work. The clinic owner had taken appropriate steps to address safety concerns, including:
- Contacting the police immediately after the threats
- Notifying the alarm company to ensure a rapid police response
- Advising staff to avoid contact with the client and her partner
The court ruled that the refusal to send the termination letter did not amount to constructive dismissal, as the employer had acted reasonably in addressing safety concerns.
Resignation, Not Dismissal
The court also found that the worker’s refusal to return to work unless the letter was sent constituted a resignation. The court noted that:
- The worker had continued working at the clinic for two weeks after the incident.
- She lived two blocks away from the client without any reported safety concerns.
- Her doctor’s note was vague and did not specify what actions the employer needed to take.
The court emphasized that the request for the return of the worker’s keys was reasonable, given her statement that she wouldn’t return without the termination letter.
Medical Evidence and Moral Damages
The court rejected the worker’s claim for moral damages and damages under the Human Rights Code, citing a lack of medical evidence to substantiate claims of disability or mental distress.
The court noted that while the death of the worker’s father-in-law may have been a traumatic event, there was no evidence to suggest that the clinic had created a poisoned or unsafe work environment that contributed to her decision to leave.
Key Takeaways for Employers
- Document All Safety Measures: Employers should document any steps taken to protect employees after a safety incident, as these records may be critical in defending against wrongful dismissal claims.
- Clarify Communication: When an employee indicates an unwillingness to return to work, seek clarification before assuming they have resigned.
- Assess Reasonable Accommodations: Employers should ensure that any accommodations requested by employees are reasonable and necessary to facilitate a safe return to work.
The Ontario court’s decision underscores the importance of clear communication and documentation when dealing with potential resignation or dismissal situations. In this case, the court concluded that the clinic owner had taken appropriate steps to protect her staff and that the worker’s refusal to return to work amounted to resignation, not wrongful or constructive dismissal.
Considering an IME or document review to resolve an insurance claim, legal file, or workplace health and safety issue?
Our specialists provide evidence-based opinions, so get in touch with Western Medical today to learn more about our services.