Ruling awards terminated employee balance of salary under fixed-term contract
Given insufficient grounds for summary dismissal, the New Brunswick Court of King’s Bench held that an employer should have progressively disciplined its employee and allowed him to reform his conduct with the knowledge that he was subject to discipline.
In Schick v University of New Brunswick, 2025 NBKB 207, the defendant university (UNB) hired the plaintiff on May 3, 2021, as head coach of its women’s volleyball team on a three-year fixed-term contract.
In May 2023, five volleyball team members and a team therapist filed complaints against the coach with UNB’s human rights and positive environment office.
In response, UNB placed the coach on paid leave and asked a lawyer to conduct an independent investigation into the six complaints. The lawyer’s report mentioned numerous examples of the coach’s behaviour allegedly violating UNB’s harassment policy.
On Oct. 31, 2023, before the contractual term’s end, UNB terminated the coach, allegedly for just cause. UNB said the coach breached essential employment terms and conditions, contravened his fundamental duties, and created a poisoned work environment.
When the coach took the matter to court, UNB argued that it acted appropriately in considering and investigating the complaints, treated the coach fairly, and could not resort to progressive discipline due to the team members’ vulnerable position and the impact of the coach’s conduct on them.
Pay awarded
The Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick found the coach entitled to:
- $50,920.98 as the total judgment, plus costs and interest
- $43,910.05 for the unpaid balance of his full salary for the three-year term
- $5,269.16 as compensation for the loss of UNB’s pension plan contributions
- $1,741.77 in contributions that UNB would have paid for the rest of the term
- $3,500 in costs, plus harmonized sales tax and disbursements
The court accepted that UNB, which was justified in disciplining the coach, took the appropriate steps to investigate the harassment complaints and consider the investigation results.
However, the court found the coach entitled to progressive discipline due to UNB’s inadequate basis to dismiss him summarily. The court noted that not all breaches of UNB’s harassment policy called for termination.
The court saw factors supporting the coach’s entitlement to progressive discipline. The court noted that the lawyer’s investigation determined that the coach faced some unfounded complaints, showed insight into his issues, and appeared willing to address them.
Lastly, the court rejected the claims for:
- moving expenses for the coach’s return to his BC home, given that the employment agreement did not appear to cover such expenses
- moral or punitive damages because UNB acted reasonably in most respects in dealing with the complaints upon receipt
- vacation entitlement since the value was unclear
- loss of group benefit coverage
