Assignment task:
Mary was 52 years old and had worked for Alberta Hardware for 22 years as a supervisor when a sexual harassment complaint was lodged against her. One of the complainants was the 22 year old daughter of her manager, Bob. When Bob learned about the complaint, he arranged for a friend and colleague, Sam, to conduct the investigation. Sam met with Mary to advise her that he was doing an investigation, but he refused to tell Mary what she was alleged to have done. Sam simply said, "You know what you did." At one point, Mary told Sam she thought someone might be out to get her; however this allegation was never pursued and the complainants were never questioned about their motives. Within a week, Mary was suspended, escorted from the workplace and dismissed for cause. Mary sued for wrongful dismissal and other damages. At the jury trial, the jury heard evidence that one of the complainants had been heard saying that she would "get even" with Mary for having him transferred. On the basis of this and other evidence, the jury found that the complainants lacked credibility and that the employer had acted in bad faith in its investigation. The jury awarded Mary 24 months' reasonable notice damages, aggravated damages of $200,000 (although no evidence of mental distress losses were put forward) and punitive damages of $300,000. Mary's total award was: $700,000.
a) Based on the facts presented above, do you agree that the employer acted in bad faith in their dealings with Mary's termination? Support your answer.
b) Based on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Honda Canada v Keays, do you think the Alberta Court of Appeal would support Mary's damage award? Why or why not?
c) Do you think the changes made to Wallace (bad-faith) damage awards by the Supreme Court of Canada in Honda v Keays is generally a good or bad idea? Support your answer.