Exam (elaborations)
IDRL 320 Case studies questions and answers
- Course
- Institution
IDRL 320 Case studies questions and answers
[Show more]
Content preview
IDRL 320 Case studiesquestions and answers
Machtinger v HOJ Industries - answer Worker's contract stated they
were not entitled to any reasonable notice of termination in
contrast to the ESA. HOJ realized error and paid minimum 4 weeks
as per ESA. Worker sued for wrongful dismissal and court was in
agreement. It stated that when a term violated the ESA minimum
notice, the CL implied term of reasonable notice would take
precedence. This was done because if only sanction was minimum
notice, employers would have little incentive to comply in the first
place.
Bardal v Globe and Mail Ltd - answer A advertising manager was
fired after 16 years of service however there was no term in the
contract which outlined what worker was entitled to in terms of
reasonable notice. This was left for courts to determine. They
considered factors such as age, character of employment, length of
service, availability of similar jobs and training/skills/qualifications
of workers. These factors are the leading authority in judging the
length of notice a worker is entitled to.
McKinley v BC Tel - answer Worker did not disclose doctor
suggested a med that could help with health issue and instead
asked employer to accommodate. Once employer found out,
terminated contract stating cause. Court used the principle of
proportionality which it must be shown that most likely than not,
the dishonesty had occurred and second, if it did occur were the
repercussions proportionate to the level of dishonesty? Ruled that
summary dismissal was not warranted + worker was entitled to
reasonable notice + damages. This was contrary to earlier court
decisions that found ANY dishonesty grounds for dismissal.
Queen v Cognos Inc - answer Accepted new job offer, quit current
job and moved cities. Org failed to disclose that job was contingent
on funding that had not yet been disclosed. Contract stated that
, worker was entitled to one month's notice. Worker sued for tort of
negligent misrepresentation. Court agreed as it was proven that the
information in question was misleading/untrue, that the omission
was negligent, that the worker depended on this information in
which the results were detrimental and there was a duty of care
which was contrary to previous decisions in which a duty of care
was a more narrow scope. This became the leading case referenced
to in Canadian Law regarding this tort in the job recruitment
process.
R v. Barton upon Irwell - answer Servant was imprisoned for being
disobedient, master requested servant be released, as they were
however ended up back in jail for same issue. Servant argued that
contract was terminated after first imprisonment. Court disagreed
stating that it was within master's power to decide if relationship
would continue and that is what the master had decided here. This
case showed that low legal status affected the master/servant laws
and how this model treated servants as subordinate to their
masters.
Turner v Mason - answer Servant was denied time off to visit dying
mother however went anyway. Upon returning servant was
terminated. Servant argued in court that they were entitled to
notice however court disagreed stating that there was a breach
when the servant failed to obey a lawful order. Servant was not
entitled to reasonable notice. This case highlighted the power
imbalance that was entrenched in the master/servant relationship
because of the law.
Rejdak v The Fight Network Inc - answer Verbal job offer, talked
about salary, job title and start date. Worker accepted the offer but
on first day was presented with a written contract which stated that
the worker could be terminated without notice during the probation
period. Worker argued that they were entitled to the implied term of
reasonable notice. Court agreed upholding the verbal agreement
and stating that the written contract was not legally enforceable
due to the lack of mutual consideration.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller GUARANTEEDSUCCESS. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $19.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
75632 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now