A dramatic example of this doctrine is the B.C. Supreme Court decision in Schmidt v. AMEC Earth – Environmental et al.13 In 1987, Jerry Schmidt executed an employment contract that provided that he would be dismissed for 150 days (approximately 21 weeks) if terminated without cause. In 2003, it was terminated for no reason and AMEC was met with its obligations under the 1987 treaty. However, since 1987, Mr. Schmidt has been promoted several times. AMEC had not referred to the original agreement when these promotions were granted. The Court also found that the original agreement did not provide for any future promotion or change in Mr. Schmidt`s position.
After checking his age, seniority and external labour market, the court awarded Mr. Schmidt 22 months of compensation instead of dismissal.14 The total amount of damages related to interest and costs was well over $200,000, instead of the $45,000 originally expected by the employer. If a worker on a fixed-term or fixed-term contract is terminated for no reason before the expiry of the term or abandonment, the injury suffered by the worker is the amount to which he would have been entitled at the time of the contract` performance. Lawyers should be cautious when asked to reach a temporary agreement on whether there could be circumstances that would not have a single reason to induce the employer to terminate this relationship earlier and, if so, to make arrangements for prior termination. If this is the case, it may be appropriate to create a hybrid agreement that will end as soon as possible: the issue has also been addressed with regard to the ownership of employees in the employer`s shares. The Court of Appeal did not ask questions between the rights of a worker as an employee and the rights of a worker as a shareholder 40 In the two cases cited, the various employees also held shares in capital companies subject to the terms of a shareholders` pact. Following the termination of an employee, the agreements provided that the employee had received a notice of transmission and that the former employee`s shares had been repurchased by the company (or by a particular purchaser). This type of arrangement is the norm. However, the law would require a termination and a lump sum payment of the severance pay reflecting the performance of the hypothetical officer, both with the sales company and with the beneficiary company. The benefit of the two entities would be considered in accordance with the employer`s provisions under Section 9 of the Act.