Pollock v. First Heritage Financial Planning Ltd. (2002), 21 C.C.E.L. (3d) 61 (B.C. S.C.)
At issue in this case was whether the six plaintiffs had resigned or were actually or constructively dismissed from their employment. Two of the plaintiffs were financial advisors, three were certified financial planners and one was an investment manager for First Heritage Financial Planning Ltd.
In 1999 First Heritage changed the way it operated its financial planning business. To this end, a memorandum outlining the changes to the plaintiffs’ employment was provided to them on March 20, 2000. The memorandum asked the plaintiffs to sign the letter of agreement and stated the new program would come into effect on April 1, 2000.
After reviewing the package, each of the plaintiffs sent a letter to First Heritage which stated, in essentially identical terms, that they declined to accept the changes to their employment contract but would be happy to report to work on April 1 under the existing terms and conditions of their employment.
The plaintiffs tried to meet with First Heritage’s representative, Delaney, to discuss the matter but he refused to meet with them. The plaintiffs then sent a memo to Delaney stating they had interpreted his refusal to meet with them as an indication he did not want them to report to work under their existing terms and conditions of employment and therefore, unless written notice to the contrary to was provided, they would “proceed accordingly.”
Delaney’s response to this memo was a written letter to each of the plaintiffs stating he accepted their resignation. One of the plaintiffs told Delaney in response to this letter that the plaintiffs had not resigned. Delaney simply told them to return their keys and expense account cards and to clear out their offices.
The plaintiffs argued they had been either actually or constructively dismissed from their employment, while First Heritage took the position that the plaintiffs’ memo stating they would “proceed accordingly” constituted a resignation. The court held the plaintiffs did not resign from their employment, but were dismissed.
The court stated the plaintiffs had indicated an intention to continue working for First Heritage under the existing terms and conditions of their employment. They did not say they were not going to report for work and were going to sue for damages, nor that if First Heritage insisted on implementing the changes that they would terminate their employment contracts.
The court held a reasonable person in First Heritage’s position would not conclude the plaintiffs were resigning from their employment. The memo did not constitute a clear, unequivocal notice of resignation. The plaintiffs’ employment had been wrongfully terminated without cause and therefore the plaintiffs were entitled to damages.
At issue in this case was whether the six plaintiffs had resigned or were actually or constructively dismissed from their employment. Two of the plaintiffs were financial advisors, three were certified financial planners and one was an investment manager for First Heritage Financial Planning Ltd.
In 1999 First Heritage changed the way it operated its financial planning business. To this end, a memorandum outlining the changes to the plaintiffs’ employment was provided to them on March 20, 2000. The memorandum asked the plaintiffs to sign the letter of agreement and stated the new program would come into effect on April 1, 2000.
After reviewing the package, each of the plaintiffs sent a letter to First Heritage which stated, in essentially identical terms, that they declined to accept the changes to their employment contract but would be happy to report to work on April 1 under the existing terms and conditions of their employment.
The plaintiffs tried to meet with First Heritage’s representative, Delaney, to discuss the matter but he refused to meet with them. The plaintiffs then sent a memo to Delaney stating they had interpreted his refusal to meet with them as an indication he did not want them to report to work under their existing terms and conditions of employment and therefore, unless written notice to the contrary to was provided, they would “proceed accordingly.”
Delaney’s response to this memo was a written letter to each of the plaintiffs stating he accepted their resignation. One of the plaintiffs told Delaney in response to this letter that the plaintiffs had not resigned. Delaney simply told them to return their keys and expense account cards and to clear out their offices.
The plaintiffs argued they had been either actually or constructively dismissed from their employment, while First Heritage took the position that the plaintiffs’ memo stating they would “proceed accordingly” constituted a resignation. The court held the plaintiffs did not resign from their employment, but were dismissed.
The court stated the plaintiffs had indicated an intention to continue working for First Heritage under the existing terms and conditions of their employment. They did not say they were not going to report for work and were going to sue for damages, nor that if First Heritage insisted on implementing the changes that they would terminate their employment contracts.
The court held a reasonable person in First Heritage’s position would not conclude the plaintiffs were resigning from their employment. The memo did not constitute a clear, unequivocal notice of resignation. The plaintiffs’ employment had been wrongfully terminated without cause and therefore the plaintiffs were entitled to damages.
