1. Evans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31, 2008 SCC 20 (CanLII) Evans worked for the union in Whitehorse for 23 years. He was dismissed by a letter faxed to him by the newly elected president. Evans offered to accept 24 months notice: 12 months of employment, followed by 12 months salary. Negotiations continued, during which Evans continued to be paid. Four months later the union asked Evans to return to his employment for the balance of the 24-month notice period. Evans refused and the union treated his refusal as just cause. The trial judge awarded Evans 22 months pay for wrongful dismissal. The Court of Appeal set aside the award, ruling that Evans' refusal to accept the union's offer meant that he failed to mitigate his damages. The Supreme Court found in favour of the union, holding that a dismissed employee may have to mitigate his damages by returning to work for the same employer. Is this fair to the employee? What factors should a court consider when deciding whether an employee should return to work for the employer who dismissed him? 2. Menagh v. Hamilton (City); 2005 36268 (ON SC) [Note: Your instructor may assign this case as a Shared Writing activity.] Menagh, a lawyer, was employed by the City of Hamilton as its Director of Labour Relations & Employee Wellness Health and Safety. After 13 years of service, he was terminated for just cause. The evidence established that Mr. Menagh had engaged in a romantic relationship with another city employee, but when that relationship ended, Menagh engaged in a long run of sexual harassment. Menagh even went so far as to approach the Mayo in an attempt to have his former girlfriend, the Mayor's Chief of Staff fired. The employer had numerous workplace policies, including one stating that all employees have a right to a working environment free from sexual harassment and personal harassment in the workplace. Menagh sued for wrongful dismissal-challenging whether there was cause and whether the discipline imposed was proportionate to any wrong committed. List the factors that will be considered as relevant to the court's decision. Do you think that his position will be relevant