ARTICLE
22 August 2018

Update To Extraordinary Damages In Canadian Employment Law

MA
MacDonald & Associates

Contributor

MacDonald & Associates  logo
With over 30 years of experience filled with accomplishments and success stories, Natalie MacDonald, author and winner of the leading case on Extraordinary Damages in Canadian Employment Law, has been repeatedly named among Canada’s Top Employment Law Practitioners, and amongst the Best in the World by the prestigious “Women in Business Law” guide. In 2019, Natalie was named Employment Lawyer of the Year by Canadian Lawyer and Canadian HR Reporter, with the firm named Employment Law Firm of the Year by Global Awards. Natalie and her team are the go-to experts for anyone facing challenges in the workplace.
But Justice Emery was very careful about how the damages were defined to ensure there was no overlap.
Canada Employment and HR

Natalie MacDonald is working on an update to her influential book, Extraordinary Damages in Canadian Employment Law.

MacDonald completed the original in 2010 but tells AdvocateDaily.com that she hopes to have the revised version available for publication by Carswell sometime in 2019.

"There have been some big changes in the case law which will feature strongly," she says. "The book has been quoted in lots of decisions, and I keep hearing that people are waiting for the update, so it's very exciting to be working on it."

One case, which MacDonald successfully argued, Galea v. Walmart, decided in late 2017, will feature heavily in the update, according to MacDonald, who also acted for the plaintiff. It involved a woman regarded as a rising star in the boardroom of a major retailer before her unceremonious firing from a senior management position in 2010.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Michael Emery ordered her former employer to pay the woman $750,000, including $250,000 in moral damages, covering aggravated damages and damages for mental distress.

"It's the leading decision now, and has really changed the landscape in terms of moral damages," MacDonald says. "Before now, moral damages were not something that were readily provided by courts because of the danger of duplicate damages. But Justice Emery was very careful about how the damages were defined to ensure there was no overlap.

"It's an incredibly important decision, not just for the amount of damages, but for its principles regarding manner of dismissal and, I'm told it is consistently cited in every case brief ever since," she adds.

Read More

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More