Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centered on the appropriate notice period following wrongful dismissal.

• Contention over whether mitigation earnings beyond the determined notice period should reduce damages.

• Correction of a prior judgment involving a manifest arithmetic and legal error.

• Application of Rule 13-1(17) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules to amend the order.

• Defendant's argument that the court was functus officio was rejected.

• Plaintiff ultimately awarded increased damages after proper adjustment for mitigation.

Facts and outcome of the case

Nancy-Ann Plank was employed by Hapnin Enterprises Ltd. until she was terminated on or about November 9, 2021. She subsequently filed a claim for damages arising from what she alleged was wrongful dismissal. The original trial judge agreed that the dismissal was wrongful and awarded damages based on an 18-month reasonable notice period, rather than the 24 months the plaintiff sought. The court initially calculated her damages at $13,309.42 after deducting her mitigation earnings from subsequent employment.

After her termination, Plank had secured alternate employment by January 2022, thereby mitigating part of her loss. However, it became apparent that the initial judgment erroneously deducted earnings from the final six months of what would have been a 24-month notice period, rather than limiting the deductions to the 18-month period actually awarded.

The present judgment, issued by Justice Funt, addressed this manifest error. The court held that deducting earnings from a period beyond the 18-month notice was legally unsound and unjust. Rule 13-1(17) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules authorized the court to correct such an error, and the inherent jurisdiction of the court also applied. The court rejected the defendant’s position that it was functus officio, noting no order had yet been entered and no irrevocable reliance had occurred.

Justice Funt recalculated the damages and determined that the plaintiff’s earnings in the six months beyond the 18-month period—totaling $18,524.29—should not have been deducted. With this adjustment, the correct wage loss was $31,833.71. The court awarded this revised amount to the plaintiff, along with pre-judgment interest as per the Court Order Interest Act.

In conclusion, the plaintiff, Nancy-Ann Plank, succeeded in having her damages award increased to reflect a correct application of mitigation principles and notice period, reaffirming foundational rules in employment law on wrongful dismissal and post-termination earnings.