Employer didn't realize difference in laws between the jurisdiction of its head office in Saskatchewan and its Alberta branch
An Alberta company violated an employee’s human rights when it pushed him to retire at age 65 in accordance with its mandatory retirement policy, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench has ruled.
Leo Magnan, 68, worked for the Edmonton facility of Brandt Tractor Ltd., a heavy construction and forestry equipment company. He began working in the industry in 1966 and continued with Brandt when it bought his employer in 1999.
Brandt had an unwritten mandatory retirement policy which required employees to retire at 65, or shortly after. This policy was contrary to Alberta human rights legislation but at the time was allowed in Saskatchewan, where Brandt’s head office was located.
Saskatchewan has since introduced legislation to abolish mandatory retirement much the same as Alberta. None of the Brandt management team were aware of the discrepancy between the two provinces. The company doesn’t offer severance or retirement packages but employees can apply to receive their pension.
Magnan turned 65 on Nov. 3, 2004. On Sept. 19, 2003, he asked management if there was a retirement package over and above the pension, and the response was there wasn’t. In July 2004, he asked the president of the company if there was a retirement package. The president confirmed there wasn’t and Brandt employees retired at 65. Magnan asked if he could work past his 65th birthday. The president said he could work until year end, which he meant as Dec. 31, 2004. However, Magnan thought he meant the end of the fiscal year, which was March 31, 2005, and was fine with it.
Management told Magnan in October 2004 that his retirement would be on Dec. 31 and it would begin looking for his replacement. Magnan made it clear he didn’t like the mandatory retirement policy but would respect it and retire on Dec. 31.
In December 2004, Magnan took his replacement around to meet customers in preparation for the transfer of duties. On Dec. 11, he went to the company Christmas party where he was given a retirement gift of $1,500 in gift certificates. However, on Dec. 15, Brandt received a letter from Magnan’s lawyer pointing out there was no statutory mandatory retirement in Alberta, they couldn’t force him to retire and he was seeking damages for wrongful dismissal.
Brandt agreed to allow Magnan to return to work on Jan. 3, 2005, until his desired retirement date of March 31, 2005, though it expressed disappointment with the “false pretenses” under which he acted during the hiring of his replacement and the gift from the party. It also didn’t specify whether Magnan would be assigned to his old position, but just said, “Mr. Magnan will continue in Brandt’s employ.”
Magnan didn’t return to work as he indicated he was going to proceed with legal action. The court found Brandt wasn’t aware of the Alberta human rights legislation which prohibited mandatory retirement because it constituted age discrimination since it was different in Saskatchewan, where its home office was. However, it didn’t excuse the violation of the legislation and Brandt’s rights.
“(Brandt), through lack of knowledge, breached the implied term of the employment contract to give Magnan reasonable notice of his termination,” the court said. “Brandt was of the mistaken belief that they could terminate their employment contract with Magnan on his 65th birthday.”
The court found Magnan had accepted March 31, 2005, as his retirement date and intended to do so.
It awarded him three months’ wages and benefits to make up for the difference between that date and Dec. 31, 2004.
“Magnan’s duties were unilaterally and fundamentally changed,” the court said. “Magnan stuck around for the Christmas party before accepting the repudiation of his employment contract through his lawyer’s letter.” See Magnan v. Brandt Tractor Ltd., 2007 CarswellAlta 908 (Alta. Q.B.).
Leo Magnan, 68, worked for the Edmonton facility of Brandt Tractor Ltd., a heavy construction and forestry equipment company. He began working in the industry in 1966 and continued with Brandt when it bought his employer in 1999.
Brandt had an unwritten mandatory retirement policy which required employees to retire at 65, or shortly after. This policy was contrary to Alberta human rights legislation but at the time was allowed in Saskatchewan, where Brandt’s head office was located.
Saskatchewan has since introduced legislation to abolish mandatory retirement much the same as Alberta. None of the Brandt management team were aware of the discrepancy between the two provinces. The company doesn’t offer severance or retirement packages but employees can apply to receive their pension.
Magnan turned 65 on Nov. 3, 2004. On Sept. 19, 2003, he asked management if there was a retirement package over and above the pension, and the response was there wasn’t. In July 2004, he asked the president of the company if there was a retirement package. The president confirmed there wasn’t and Brandt employees retired at 65. Magnan asked if he could work past his 65th birthday. The president said he could work until year end, which he meant as Dec. 31, 2004. However, Magnan thought he meant the end of the fiscal year, which was March 31, 2005, and was fine with it.
Management told Magnan in October 2004 that his retirement would be on Dec. 31 and it would begin looking for his replacement. Magnan made it clear he didn’t like the mandatory retirement policy but would respect it and retire on Dec. 31.
In December 2004, Magnan took his replacement around to meet customers in preparation for the transfer of duties. On Dec. 11, he went to the company Christmas party where he was given a retirement gift of $1,500 in gift certificates. However, on Dec. 15, Brandt received a letter from Magnan’s lawyer pointing out there was no statutory mandatory retirement in Alberta, they couldn’t force him to retire and he was seeking damages for wrongful dismissal.
Brandt agreed to allow Magnan to return to work on Jan. 3, 2005, until his desired retirement date of March 31, 2005, though it expressed disappointment with the “false pretenses” under which he acted during the hiring of his replacement and the gift from the party. It also didn’t specify whether Magnan would be assigned to his old position, but just said, “Mr. Magnan will continue in Brandt’s employ.”
Magnan didn’t return to work as he indicated he was going to proceed with legal action. The court found Brandt wasn’t aware of the Alberta human rights legislation which prohibited mandatory retirement because it constituted age discrimination since it was different in Saskatchewan, where its home office was. However, it didn’t excuse the violation of the legislation and Brandt’s rights.
“(Brandt), through lack of knowledge, breached the implied term of the employment contract to give Magnan reasonable notice of his termination,” the court said. “Brandt was of the mistaken belief that they could terminate their employment contract with Magnan on his 65th birthday.”
The court found Magnan had accepted March 31, 2005, as his retirement date and intended to do so.
It awarded him three months’ wages and benefits to make up for the difference between that date and Dec. 31, 2004.
“Magnan’s duties were unilaterally and fundamentally changed,” the court said. “Magnan stuck around for the Christmas party before accepting the repudiation of his employment contract through his lawyer’s letter.” See Magnan v. Brandt Tractor Ltd., 2007 CarswellAlta 908 (Alta. Q.B.).
