Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Determined whether the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed without just cause.

• Assessed the appropriate notice period and resulting damages for the termination.

• Evaluated the plaintiff’s entitlement to prejudgment interest despite procedural delays.

• Considered the impact of litigation conduct on the award of costs.

• Weighed the relevance of settlement offers to cost awards.

• Rejected claims of misconduct and unethical behavior by opposing counsel.

Facts and outcome of the case

William Harvey Harris was employed by the Town of Hay River from April 2014 until his termination in October 2015. Harris alleged that his dismissal was without just cause and brought a claim for wrongful dismissal, seeking damages including compensation in lieu of notice, benefits, and prejudgment interest. The Town initially challenged the claim and, following prolonged litigation that included procedural delays and heated accusations, the matter went to trial in May 2024. The court had previously ruled in Harris’s favor in an earlier decision, and this ruling addressed the quantification of damages, interest, and costs.

Calculation of damages

The court reaffirmed that Harris was entitled to eight months of salary in lieu of notice. He had already received a payment of $12,316.50 at the time of dismissal, which was deducted from the gross award of $74,646. After applying a 30% withholding tax, the net salary damages totaled $43,630.65. In addition, the court confirmed the Town owed Harris $3,833.76 in net employment benefits, again after tax deductions. Together, these amounts resulted in a total damages award of $47,464.41.

Prejudgment interest

The Town argued that Harris should not receive interest due to delays he allegedly caused in the proceedings. While the court acknowledged some procedural missteps, it did not find the delays sufficient to deny interest. Accordingly, prejudgment interest was awarded in the amount of $15,376.97, calculated based on the Bank of Canada’s prime rate.

Costs and litigation conduct

Although Harris was successful, his conduct during the litigation—especially the persistent and unfounded allegations that the Town’s legal counsel had hacked his computer—led to a reduced cost award. Normally, the successful party would receive full party-and-party costs under the court’s tariff. However, because of Harris’s conduct, the court awarded him a reduced fixed amount of $7,000 in costs, inclusive of all disbursements and GST.

Final order and disposition

The court ordered the total payment to Harris to be $69,841.38, comprising damages, interest, and costs. The Town was also directed to remit $20,341.89 in taxes to the Canada Revenue Agency on behalf of Harris. Despite being self-represented for much of the litigation and facing procedural challenges, Harris ultimately succeeded in proving wrongful dismissal and recovering compensation. However, his lack of legal training and aggressive litigation tactics significantly affected the outcome on costs.