Please using the questions, I wrote below as guideline, Help draft a paper summarizing your understanding of this prima facie case and its importance to employment contract law:

a.Who are the stakeholders?

b.What are the

main issues for each stakeholder?

c.What are the

key legal issues based on Canadian employment laws?

d.Which issues do

you think became the central focus of the court case?

e.Are damages for

mental distress available to a former employee because of termination?

f.Can the

calculation of reasonable notice be extended as a direct result of the

employer's conduct during termination?

g.What do you

think was the outcome or ruling in this court case?

h.What legal

precedents do you think were set because of this case?

Below is the

Wallacev.United

Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 701

Jack

WallaceAppellant

v.

United

Grain Growers LimitedRespondent

Indexed

as:Wallacev.

United Grain Growers Ltd.

File No.:24986.

1997:May 22;

1997:October 30.

Present:Lamer

C.J. and LaForest, L'HeureuxDub, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin,

Iacobucci and MajorJJ.

on appeal from the court of

appeal for manitoba

Bankruptcy

Property of bankrupt Salary, wages or other remuneration Undischarged

bankrupt bringing action for wrongful dismissal Whether damages for wrongful

dismissal included in "salary, wages or other remuneration"

Bankruptcy Act,R.S.C., 1985, c.B3, s.68(1).

Civil

procedure Wrongful dismissal Undischarged bankrupt seeking damages for

wrongful dismissal Whether undischarged bankrupt can bring action for

wrongful dismissal in his own name.

Employment

law Wrongful dismissal Employee summarily discharged seeking damages for

wrongful dismissal -- Trial judge awarding employee damages based on 24month

notice period and aggravated damages Whether Court of Appeal erred in

reducing reasonable notice period to 15 months Whether Court of Appeal erred

in overturning aggravated damages award Whether action can be brought for

"bad faith discharge" Whether employee entitled to punitive

damages.

In 1972 a printing company

wholly owned by the respondent decided to update its operations and seek a

larger volume of commercial printing work.The appellant, W, met L, the

marketing manager of the company's publishing and printing divisions, to

discuss the possibility of employment.W had the type of experience L

sought, having worked approximately 25 years for a competitor that used a

particular type of press.W explained to L that as he was 45 years of age,

if he were to leave his current employer he would require a guarantee of job

security.He also sought several assurances from L regarding fair

treatment and remuneration.He received such assurances and was told by L

that if he performed as expected, he could continue to work for the company

until retirement.W was hired and enjoyed great success at the company; he

was the top salesperson for each of the years he spent in its employ.In

1986 he was summarily discharged without explanation.W issued a statement

of claim alleging wrongful dismissal.In its statement of defence, the

respondent alleged that W had been dismissed for cause.This allegation

was maintained until the trial commenced.The termination of W's

employment and the allegations of cause created emotional difficulties for him

and he was forced to seek psychiatric help.His attempts to find similar

employment were largely unsuccessful.Prior to his dismissal, W made a

voluntary assignment into personal bankruptcy, and remained an undischarged

bankrupt when he commenced his action against the respondent.The trial

judge struck out his claim for damages for breach of contract, holding that a

claim for damages for wrongful dismissal based on lack of notice vests in the

trustee in bankruptcy, and concluded that the action in that regard was a

nullity from the outset.W's attempt to appeal the trial judge's ruling

was stayed by the Court of Appeal pending completion of the trial.The

trial resumed and subject to the outcome of the appeal on the bankruptcy issue,

W was awarded damages for wrongful dismissal based on a 24month notice period

and$15,000 in aggravated damages resulting from mental distress in both

tort and contract.The trial judge refused to award punitive

damages.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge's findings with

respect to W's capacity to maintain an action for breach of contract,

concluding that W had the right to continue his action for wrongful dismissal

in his own name in the absence of the trustee.It also allowed the

respondent's crossappeal.It reduced the reasonable notice period to 15

months, on the basis that the trial judge may have allowed an element of

aggravated damages to creep into his assessment and that recent awards in such

cases had been getting too high and overturned the award of aggravated damages.

Held(La

Forest, L'HeureuxDub and McLachlin JJ. dissenting in part on the

appeal):The appeal should be allowed in part and the crossappeal

dismissed.

PerLamer

C.J. and Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci and Major JJ.:W can maintain

an action for wrongful dismissal in his own name.While under theBankruptcy

Act, an undischarged bankrupt has no capacity to deal with his or

her property and no distinction is made with respect to whether that property

was acquired before or after the assignment in

bankruptcy,s.68(1)carves out an exception to this general

rule where the property in question can be characterized as "salary, wages

or other remuneration".To remain true to the spirit of the Act, this

exception must include an award of damages for wrongful dismissal.The

measure of such damages is the salary that the employee would have earned had

the employee worked during the period of notice to which he or she was

entitled.The fact that this sum is awarded as damages at trial in no way

alters the fundamental character of the money.Several courts have interpreted

the phrase "salary, wages or other remuneration" broadly.The

public policy considerations that inform the section offer further support for

interpreting it broadly.

The trial judge's award of

damages in the amount of 24 months' salary in lieu of notice should be

restored.In light of W's advanced age, his 14year tenure as the

company's top salesman and his limited prospects for reemployment, a lengthy

period of notice is warranted.Another factor to be considered is whether

the dismissed employee was induced to leave previous secure

employment.Although the trial judge did not make specific reference to

the inducement factor in his analysis of reasonable notice, in the

circumstances of this case the inducements made, in particular the guarantee of

job security, are factors which support his decision to award damages at the

high end of the scale.

Bad faith conduct in the

manner of dismissal is another factor that is properly compensated for by an

addition to the notice period.The contract of employment has many

characteristics that set it apart from the ordinary commercial

contract.Individual employees on the whole lack both the bargaining power

and the information necessary to achieve more favourable contract provisions

than those offered by the employer, particularly with regard to

tenure.This power imbalance is not limited to the employment contract

itself, but informs virtually all facets of the employment

relationship.The point at which the employment relationship ruptures is

the time when the employee is most vulnerable and hence most in need of

protection.In recognition of this need, the law ought to encourage

conduct that minimizes the damage and dislocation (both economic and personal)

that result from dismissal.To ensure that employees receive adequate

protection, employers ought to be held to an obligation of good faith and fair

dealing in the manner of dismissal, breach of which will be compensated for by

adding to the length of the notice period.While the obligation of good

faith and fair dealing is incapable of precise definition, at a minimum in the

course of dismissal employers ought to be candid, reasonable, honest and

forthright with their employees and should refrain from engaging in conduct

that is unfair or is in bad faith by being, for example, untruthful, misleading

or unduly insensitive.

While a dismissed employee is

not entitled to compensation for injuries flowing from the fact of the

dismissal itself, where an employee can establish that an employer engaged in

bad faith conduct or unfair dealing in the course of dismissal, injuries such

as humiliation, embarrassment and damage to one's sense of selfworth and selfesteem

might all be worthy of compensation depending upon the circumstances of the

case.Often the intangible injuries caused by bad faith conduct or unfair

dealing on dismissal will lead to difficulties in finding alternative

employment, a tangible loss which the Court of Appeal rightly recognized as

warranting an addition to the notice period.However, the intangible

injuries are sufficient to merit compensation in and of themselves.Bad

faith conduct which affects employment prospects may be worthy of considerably

more compensation than that which does not, but in both cases, damage has

resulted that should be compensable.The trial judge documented several

examples of bad faith conduct on the part of the respondent.While the

award of the equivalent of 24 months' salary in lieu of notice is at the high

end of the scale, it is not unreasonable when all the relevant factors are

taken into account and there is accordingly no reason to interfere.

There is no reason to

interfere with the conclusion of the courts below that there was insufficient

evidence to support W's claim that he had a fixedterm contract for employment

until retirement.

With respect to damages for

mental distress, the Court of Appeal was correct in concluding that there was

insufficient evidence to support a finding that the respondent's actions

constituted a separate actionable wrong either in tort or in contract.In

circumstances where the manner of dismissal has caused mental distress but

falls short of an independent actionable wrong, however, the employee is not

without recourse.The trial judge has discretion in such circumstances to

extend the period of reasonable notice to which an employee is entitled.

W is unable to sue in either

tort or contract for "bad faith discharge".The Court should not

imply into the employment contract a term that the employee would not be fired

except for cause or legitimate business reasons.The law has long

recognized the mutual right of both employers and employees to terminate an

employment contract at any time provided there are no express provisions to the

contrary.A requirement of "good faith" reasons for dismissal

would be overly intrusive and inconsistent with established principles of

employment law.Similarly, the tort of breach of a good faith and fair

dealing obligation with regard to dismissals has not yet been recognized by

Canadian courts.Such radical shifts in the law are better left to the

legislatures.

The courts below were correct

in finding that there is no foundation for an award of punitive damages.

PerLa

Forest, L'HeureuxDub and McLachlin JJ. (dissenting in part on the

appeal):W's action was not precluded by his bankruptcy.Damages in

lieu of reasonable notice constitute "salary, wages or other

remuneration" for the purposes of bankruptcy legislation and hence are

recoverable.Moreover, damages for breach of the implied obligation of good

faith are recoverable because of the personal nature of the cause of action.

To determine the period of

reasonable notice in a wrongful dismissal action, the court examines the

characteristics of the particular employment relationship relevant to the

employee's prospects of finding a similar position.The manner of

dismissal should only be considered where it impacts on the difficulty of

finding replacement employment, and absent this connection, damages for the

manner of termination must be based on some other cause of action.The

fact that some courts in the past have considered factors unrelated to

prospects of reemployment in determining the notice period has rendered the

law uncertain and unpredictable.To continue on this path would only

increase that uncertainty and unpredictability.The law affords other

remedies for employer misconduct in the manner of dismissal not affecting

prospects of reemployment and has now developed to the point that to these

traditional actions may be added breach of an implied contractual term to act

in good faith in dismissing an employee.Recognition of an implied term in

the employment contract of good faith in relation to the dismissal of employees

is supported by previous decisions, academic commentary and related developments

in other areas of contract law.To the extent that recognition of such a

term may be seen as a new development, it falls within the scope of the

incremental stepbystep revision approved inWatkinsandSalituro.

The trial judge fixed the

period of reasonable notice at 24 months on the basis of a careful assessment

of W's prospects of reemployment, and there is no reason to interfere in his

assessment.The trial judge's award for the damages claimed by W for

mental distress and loss of reputation should also be upheld.These are

general damages flowing directly from the employer's breach of the implied term

of good faith and fair dealing and are therefore compensable.

There is no reason to

interfere with the trial judge's conclusion that the respondent did not engage

in sufficiently harsh, vindictive, reprehensible and malicious conduct to merit

an award representing punitive damages.

Thank you.