Recent case law in Ontario indicates that it is just not enough for an employee to express complete dissatisfaction, or even declare an intention to seek out other employment, or that he or she will resign if certain circumstances eventuate. There must be more than an expressed intention to quit in order to amount to a resignation.
Such an intention cannot be based on an employee's state of frustration or depression. The statement "I quit" may be made as a result of an emotional reaction to a critical situation or circumstance. The employee must, by clear words or actions, demonstrate his or her intent to resign unconditionally and not merely as an ultimatum, so that the threat "if you don't give me a raise, I'm out of here", in itself, is not a resignation.
That issue came up recently in a Nova Scotia case where the employee did say "I quit" and stormed out of the office. If a court finds that the actions of the employee did not amount to a resignation, and if the employer acts as if it had received a resignation, the employer may end up paying damages to the employee for wrongful dismissal.
In the Nova Scotia case Kerr v. Valley Volkswagen, the employee worked for the Volkswagen dealership for over seven years and during that time did not receive a raise. One day the employee went to the manager's office and blurted out "I want $100.00 per week raise or I'm gone." He went on to say that he had another job opportunity that would pay him more money and that it was his intention to quit if he did not receive $100.00 per week raise. Even after the threat was made, the employee continued to work for nearly three weeks until the employer informed him that he had accepted the employee's offer to resign, since he had no intention of giving him a raise. The terminated employee sued for wrongful dismissal and argued that he did not quit but had been terminated without notice or severance.
The court referenced a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where that court had commented on the power imbalance between employers and employees. The court noted that employers have a duty of fair dealing with employees, particularly at the time of the termination of an employment contract. After referring to a number of cases the court stated that the law on resignation is clear and that the statement by the employee of the Volkswagen dealership was not clear and unequivocal, and accordingly did not amount to a resignation. Since the words and actions did not indicate an immediate and firm intention to quit, the employee has not quit. Of course, when the words or actions of the employee demonstrate a clear intent to resign, unconditionally, the courts will find that the employee has indeed quit, and is not entitled to change his or her mind in order to seek damages for wrongful dismissal from a former employer.
It is not always easy for an employer to make the determination whether, in law, the employee has indeed resigned. If an employer accepts an employee's expression that he is quitting, or has quit, and later a court rules that there was no clear intention to quit, the employer will inevitably pay damages for wrongful dismissal. Even the simple statement, "I quit", requires legal analysis of the context in which it was spoken in order to determine the legal consequences.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.