Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Appellant employer challenged a 12-month notice period awarded for wrongful dismissal.

• Central dispute revolved around whether the employee was induced to leave a secure job.

• The trial court found that employer recruitment efforts and assurances constituted inducement.

• Celgar argued that there was mutual interest, not inducement, and challenged the factual findings.

• The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s assessment of evidence and application of law.

• Notice period of 12 months was deemed reasonable, given the employee’s circumstances and industry limitations.

Facts and background of the case

Gerald Ferweda, a chemical engineer with 27 years of service at Catalyst Paper’s pulp and paper mill, was approached by a recruiter on behalf of Mercer Celgar Limited Partnership (Celgar) in early 2018. Although not actively seeking new employment, Mr. Ferweda expressed interest, largely influenced by Celgar’s representation of long-term stability, superior benefits, and a lifestyle-compatible location in Castlegar, British Columbia. Following a site visit and further discussions, Celgar increased its initial salary offer, and Mr. Ferweda accepted the job. He resigned from Catalyst and began working at Celgar in April 2018.

In September 2020, Mr. Ferweda was terminated without cause as part of a downsizing initiative. He was initially given eight weeks’ severance pay, later extended to five months’ salary in lieu of notice. Disputing the adequacy of the notice period, Mr. Ferweda brought a wrongful dismissal claim, arguing he was entitled to between 12 and 18 months of notice due to inducement and limited job opportunities.

The trial court’s findings

The trial judge found in favor of Mr. Ferweda, ruling that Celgar had indeed induced him to leave secure, long-term employment. This finding was based on evidence such as Celgar’s active recruitment efforts, payment of travel expenses for the site visit, representations about long-term employment, and the final acceptance of the offer only after a salary increase. The court emphasized that while inducement need not involve aggressive tactics, reasonable expectations created through employer behavior could be sufficient to justify an increased notice period.

Considering the inducement and other factors like Mr. Ferweda’s age (56 at the time of dismissal), industry-specific limitations, and the unlikelihood of finding a comparable role, the court concluded that 12 months' notice was appropriate. The judge relied on established precedents, including Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd. and Kussmann v. AT & T Capital Canada Inc., to guide the determination.

Appeal and outcome

Celgar appealed, arguing that the trial judge had erred by overlooking material evidence, mischaracterizing the mutual interest in employment, and improperly weighing the impact of the inducement. It contended that Mr. Ferweda was equally interested in leaving Catalyst and that any inducement was modest at best.

The Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed the appeal. The appellate justices affirmed that findings of inducement and notice periods are fact-driven and deserve deference unless there is palpable and overriding error. They concluded that the trial judge’s interpretation of the evidence was reasonable and supported by the record. They also clarified that mutual interest does not negate inducement when an employer creates a persuasive expectation of long-term security.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal upheld the 12-month notice period, emphasizing that it was not inordinately high given the context. The decision reiterates the importance of inducement in employment law and how it affects reasonable notice entitlements in wrongful dismissal cases, especially when the employee leaves stable employment based on employer representations.