Court says Florida law, that allows an employer to discharge a worker almost at will, would prejudice worker's ability to receive compensation
Lozeron v. Phasecom Systems Inc., 2005 CarswellAlta 597, 2005 ABQB 328 (Alta. Q.B.)
An Alberta court has ruled it has jurisdiction in a wrongful dismissal case involving an Edmonton-based executive who worked for an American company.
In December 1997 Robert Lozeron moved from Edmonton to New Orleans to manage a branch run by Phasecom America, Inc., of the MasTec group of companies. In November 2002 he was promoted to vice-president of U.S. operations, responsible for branches across America.
He was asked to move to Stockton, Calif., but after giving it a try Lozeron resigned and moved his family back to Edmonton. His resignation was not accepted. For about one year he continued to perform his duties from Edmonton, commuting to various U.S. locations. Eventually his superior met him in Edmonton and told him his employment had been terminated.
Lozeron filed a claim for wrongful dismissal and breach of contract in Alberta. The claim was served on MasTec Canada in Ontario and on Mastec, Inc. and ¬MasTec North America Inc. in Florida. The defendants sought to dismiss the action, arguing the Alberta court had no jurisdiction and Florida was a more appropriate venue.
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench said the burden is on a plaintiff to establish whether the court has jurisdiction. Lozeron needed to establish there was sufficient connection to Alberta and that he had an arguable case.
The court determined Lozeron had met his burden. At the date of termination he was living in Edmonton and had been working out of an office in his home. His expenses were paid by the company in Canadian funds.
Lozeron claimed in an affidavit he had the support of his superiors when he moved back to Alberta and, when his resignation was refused and he agreed to continue to work for the defendant, it was on the condition he’d be able to work from Edmonton. He claimed he had never received notice the Alberta offices of the defendants had been closed.
Lozeron had established enough of an Alberta connection to satisfy the court. Florida was not a preferable venue, it said. Although corporate headquarters were located there, Lozeron had never worked in the state. Most of the witnesses were located in Canada. In addition, Florida law allows an employer to discharge a worker almost at will — this would clearly prejudice Lozeron’s ability to obtain the relief he sought, the court said.
The court added it was “very difficult, without proper examinations, to determine which corporate entity was (Lozeron's) employer.” It appeared he had been terminated without warning or previous discussion, thus satisfying the requirement that he establish he had an arguable case, the court said.
An Alberta court has ruled it has jurisdiction in a wrongful dismissal case involving an Edmonton-based executive who worked for an American company.
In December 1997 Robert Lozeron moved from Edmonton to New Orleans to manage a branch run by Phasecom America, Inc., of the MasTec group of companies. In November 2002 he was promoted to vice-president of U.S. operations, responsible for branches across America.
He was asked to move to Stockton, Calif., but after giving it a try Lozeron resigned and moved his family back to Edmonton. His resignation was not accepted. For about one year he continued to perform his duties from Edmonton, commuting to various U.S. locations. Eventually his superior met him in Edmonton and told him his employment had been terminated.
Lozeron filed a claim for wrongful dismissal and breach of contract in Alberta. The claim was served on MasTec Canada in Ontario and on Mastec, Inc. and ¬MasTec North America Inc. in Florida. The defendants sought to dismiss the action, arguing the Alberta court had no jurisdiction and Florida was a more appropriate venue.
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench said the burden is on a plaintiff to establish whether the court has jurisdiction. Lozeron needed to establish there was sufficient connection to Alberta and that he had an arguable case.
The court determined Lozeron had met his burden. At the date of termination he was living in Edmonton and had been working out of an office in his home. His expenses were paid by the company in Canadian funds.
Lozeron claimed in an affidavit he had the support of his superiors when he moved back to Alberta and, when his resignation was refused and he agreed to continue to work for the defendant, it was on the condition he’d be able to work from Edmonton. He claimed he had never received notice the Alberta offices of the defendants had been closed.
Lozeron had established enough of an Alberta connection to satisfy the court. Florida was not a preferable venue, it said. Although corporate headquarters were located there, Lozeron had never worked in the state. Most of the witnesses were located in Canada. In addition, Florida law allows an employer to discharge a worker almost at will — this would clearly prejudice Lozeron’s ability to obtain the relief he sought, the court said.
The court added it was “very difficult, without proper examinations, to determine which corporate entity was (Lozeron's) employer.” It appeared he had been terminated without warning or previous discussion, thus satisfying the requirement that he establish he had an arguable case, the court said.
