Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The court had to determine the appropriate reasonable notice period for a short-service, non-unionized employee dismissed without cause.
   
• Bardal factors, including age, length of service, and availability of similar employment, guided the analysis.
   
• Comparable BC case law informed whether a departure from the typical two-to-three-month starting point for short-service employees was justified.
   
• Whether the employer breached its duty of good faith in the manner of dismissal was also at issue, potentially entitling the plaintiff to aggravated damages.
   
• Both parties agreed the matter was suitable for resolution by summary trial on affidavit evidence.
   
• Quantification of damages depended on the plaintiff's salary, the length of notice awarded, and amounts already paid on termination.
   

Facts of the case

Quoc (Tobey) Ho, also known as Tobey Ho, was hired by Monk Office Supply Ltd. as its corporate controller effective April 1, 2024, at an annual salary of $125,000, reporting to Vice President Adam Taft. His responsibilities included guiding the finance team of three accountants, overseeing compliance with bank requirements, financial reporting, accounts receivable and payable, and participating in meetings with senior leadership and stakeholders. On June 17, 2024, roughly two-and-a-half months into his employment, Monk's President and CEO, Caitlin McKenzie, terminated Ho's employment without alleging cause, providing him a reference letter and pay through June 22. Ho was escorted to retrieve his belongings and return company property. The dismissal affected his sleep, caused anxiety, and damaged his confidence. He secured another corporate controller position five months later, though at a reduced salary of $90,000 per year.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Under Supreme Court Civil Rule 9-7(15)(a), a court may grant judgment at summary trial unless it cannot find the facts necessary to decide the issues or considers it unjust to do so summarily. Both parties agreed the case was appropriate for summary disposition. Substantively, Canadian common law entitles non-unionized employees dismissed without cause to reasonable notice unless a contract states otherwise; Monk's offer letter did not displace this default. The four Bardal factors — character of employment, length of service, age, and availability of similar employment — were applied to determine the notice period. Separately, employers owe a duty of good faith in the manner of dismissal, as recognized in Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, 2008 SCC 39, breach of which can support an award of aggravated damages.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Morley found the facts largely undisputed and suitable for summary trial, noting only a minor disagreement over how senior Ho's role was, which he resolved by relying on the contemporaneous offer letter. On notice, the court applied Saafeld v. Absolute Software Corporation, 2009 BCCA 18, which sets a typical range of two to three months for short-service employees in significant but non-senior roles, subject to upward adjustment where re-employment proves unusually difficult. The court surveyed comparable BC decisions, including Greenlees v. Starline Windows Ltd., 2018 BCSC 1457, and Younesi v. Kaz Minerals Projects B.V., 2021 BCSC 614, observing that notice periods in similar short-service cases ranged from two to six months depending on job-search duration and other aggravating factors such as inducement or failure to provide a reference. Ho's five-month job search, resulting in a lower-paying position, warranted a modest increase above the two-to-three-month starting point but not a substantial one, since none of the additional aggravating factors present in the comparables applied to his case. On aggravated damages, the court found Monk's failure to give reasons or warning was within its prerogative when dismissing a non-unionized employee without alleging cause, and that Monk's detailed, uncontradicted evidence showed the dismissal was carried out humanely. The court concluded Ho's suffering stemmed from the fact of losing his job, not from how the termination was handled, so no breach of the duty of good faith occurred.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court determined that four months was the appropriate notice period and declined to award aggravated damages, finding no breach of Monk's duty of good faith in the dismissal. Ho was the successful party on the notice period issue, receiving damages of $40,296.81, calculated from four months' pay of $41,666.67 based on his $125,000 salary, less the $1,369.86 already paid to him on termination. The court also awarded pre-judgment interest running from June 17, 2024 to July 10, 2026, and post-judgment interest, if any. Costs were left to be determined separately, with directions provided for either an oral hearing or written submissions not exceeding 10 pages.