Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds 26 Month Notice Period :
In Currie v Nylene Canada ( 2022 ONCA 209 ) the Court upheld the trial judge’s decision that the case contained exceptional circumstances which justified a notice period in excess of 24 months.
The Court of Appeal referred to the following factors :
(i) Ms. Currie left high school to start work (at age 18) as a twisting operator at Nylene and worked there for her entire career, ultimately rising to become the Chief Operator reporting to the Shift Leader;
(ii) After working at Nylene for 40 years, her employment was terminated by Nylene near the end of her career, when she was 58 years old;
(iii) Ms. Currie had very specialized skills making it very difficult for her to find alternative suitable employment. Moreover, at the time of her termination, her computer skills were limited. She made diligent efforts to attempt to gain basic computer skills and mitigate her damages but the trial judge was not convinced she would succeed in securing alternative employment;
(iv) The work landscape had evolved significantly since Ms. Currie had entered the workforce in 1979 and, as her experience was limited to working for Nylene and its predecessors in one manufacturing environment, her skills were not easily transferable; and
(v) Given Ms. Currie’s age, limited education and skills set, the termination “was equivalent to a forced retirement.”
In Currie v Nylene Canada ( 2022 ONCA 209 ) the Court upheld the trial judge’s decision that the case contained exceptional circumstances which justified a notice period in excess of 24 months.
The Court of Appeal referred to the following factors :
(i) Ms. Currie left high school to start work (at age 18) as a twisting operator at Nylene and worked there for her entire career, ultimately rising to become the Chief Operator reporting to the Shift Leader;
(ii) After working at Nylene for 40 years, her employment was terminated by Nylene near the end of her career, when she was 58 years old;
(iii) Ms. Currie had very specialized skills making it very difficult for her to find alternative suitable employment. Moreover, at the time of her termination, her computer skills were limited. She made diligent efforts to attempt to gain basic computer skills and mitigate her damages but the trial judge was not convinced she would succeed in securing alternative employment;
(iv) The work landscape had evolved significantly since Ms. Currie had entered the workforce in 1979 and, as her experience was limited to working for Nylene and its predecessors in one manufacturing environment, her skills were not easily transferable; and
(v) Given Ms. Currie’s age, limited education and skills set, the termination “was equivalent to a forced retirement.”
If you want a copy of this decision, email me at barry@barryfisher.ca