Erik Marshall, Toronto
Giovanni Strizzi (“Strizzi”) was a General Manager at a health club called Curzons
Carlingwood Club in Ottawa (“Club”). David Thomas (“Thomas”) and John Cardillo (“Cardillo”)
were partners in the operations of various health clubs in the Toronto and St.
Catharines area in addition to the club in Ottawa (collectively referred to as
the “Company”). During the relevant time period, Cardillo had
responsibility for the Club in Ottawa.
Strizzi had a good working relationship with Thomas, but found Cardillo
much more difficult to work with.
By 2003, the Club had begun to show its age
and required a number of upgrades to its equipment and facilities. New accounting software had resulted in
numerous billing problems and complaints from members, as well as late payment
of compensation to staff. While revenues
were healthy, costs had increased, which accordingly affected the Club’s bottom
line.
Three
Incidents Which Lead to Constructive Dismissal
The first of three incidents which
culminated in Strizzi’s constructive dismissal happened in March 2003, when
Strizzi returned from approved vacation.
Strizzi learned that his sister-in-law had been diagnosed with MS, and
so he went to visit her on his first night back. That evening, Cardillo attempted to call
Strizzi at the Club and became enraged when he could not reach him there. Later that evening, Cardillo reached Strizzi
by telephone at home and launched into a tirade, insulting Strizzi, calling him
names, and telling him that it was irresponsible for him not to be at the Club
that evening after having been away on vacation. Both Strizzi and his wife were in tears as a
result of the humiliating telephone call from Cardillo.
The second incident occurred in
August/September, 2003. Strizzi had been
on an approved vacation for the last two weeks in August. On the Thursday prior to the Labour Day long
weekend, Head Office for the Company faxed Strizzi notice of the monthly
meeting scheduled for the following Tuesday at 8:00 a.m. While attendance at monthly meetings in
Toronto was mandatory for General Managers such as Strizzi, it was Strizzi’s
practice to wait until he was absolutely sure that a monthly meeting would be
occurring before booking his flights to avoid to cancellations if the meeting
was changed, which was known to occur from time to time. When Strizzi returned from holiday on the
following Monday, he immediately booked a flight to Toronto for the meeting to
be held the next day. When Strizzi
arrived at Head Office the following day, he discovered that the meeting had
been cancelled. When he spoke to
Cardillo, Cardillo expressed his anger with Strizzi for wasting Company time
and money travelling to Toronto for no reason.
However, the memo notifying that the meeting was cancelled was not sent
out until after the scheduled meeting.
The third incident occurred on September
30, 2003 following the recent resignation of the Club’s Health Centre Manager,
whose resignation letter praised Strizzi as a manager and credited unresolved
problems with Head Office as the reason for his resignation. The next monthly meeting was scheduled for
October 1, 2003 in Toronto. On September,
30, 2003, Strizzi attempted to book a flight to Toronto for the following
day. Due to the Tango airline bankruptcy
just a few days earlier, the cost of an Air Canada flight to Toronto was
$900. This caused Strizzi some concern
so he decided to call Cardillo. This
conversation was the critical factor in the determination of whether there was
a constructive dismissal as alleged by Strizzi or a resignation as alleged by
Cardillo.
The conversation began with Strizzi saying
that he had not booked a flight yet and that he thought it might be better if
he stayed in Ottawa for a variety of reasons.
Cardillo responded angrily that Strizzi should have purchased his ticket
before then and that he expected Strizzi to get to Toronto for the meeting in
whatever way he could at his own expense.
The conversation deteriorated from there, with Cardillo accusing Strizzi
of trying to destroy the Club and blaming him for the resignation of the Health
Centre Manager and the poor financial performance of the Club. Cardillo threatened to get lawyers involved
and said that he would hold Strizzi responsible if he caused Cardillo to lose
business. The trial judge found that Cardillo
called Strizzi “every name in the book.”
This resulted in Strizzi saying that he could no longer work for
Cardillo. Not surprisingly, this further
enraged Cardillo. Strizzi told Cardillo
that he felt Cardillo was basically firing him, to which Cardillo responded
that he considered Strizzi to have resigned.
Resignation
vs. Constructive Dismissal
The trial judge found that Strizzi was a
loyal, hard-working and committed employee of the Club. In addition, the trial judge found that
Strizzi had no intention of tendering his resignation given the fact that he
had just bought a new home, his wife was pregnant, he had just leased a new
vehicle and had no other job prospects in the works.
In Shah
v. Xerox Canada Ltd., Justice Cullity laid out the test for this kind of
constructive dismissal as follows: “the test, I believe, is objective: it is
where the conduct of the manager was such that a reasonable person in the
circumstances should not be expected to persevere in the employment.” Applying this test to the case at hand, the
Court found that Cardillo’s behaviour amounted to constructive dismissal since
his comments made it clear to Strizzi that his continued employment was
intolerable in an environment where his employer yelled at him, called him
names, falsely accused him of ruining his business, refused to engage in
reasonable, civil conversation, told him repeatedly how useless he was, made
threats, and generally treated Strizzi in a way in which no employee should be
subjected.
Conclusion
This case is a useful reminder to employers
that, while disagreements and difficult, even heated exchanges, may be common
and expected aspects of employment relationships, employers do not have the
right to harass, humiliate, belittle or berate employees. If they do, the courts will be sympathetic to
any employee claiming damages for wrongful dismissal having reasonably
concluded that his/her continued employment had become intolerable.
Citation: Strizzi v. Curzons Management Associates
Inc., 2011 ONSC 4292 (Ont. S.C.J.).
Back to top
© Miller Thomson LLP, 2013. All Rights Reserved. All Intellectual Property Rights including copyright in this publication are owned by Miller Thomson LLP. This publication may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety provided no alterations are made to the form or content. Any other form of reproduction or distribution requires the prior written consent of Miller Thomson LLP which may be requested from the Editor(s).
This publication is provided as an information service and is a summary of current legal issues. This information is not meant as legal opinion and readers are cautioned not to act on information provided in this publication without seeking specific legal advice with respect to their unique circumstances.
Miller Thomson LLP uses your contact information to send you information on legal topics and firm events that may be of interest to you. It does not share your personal information outside the firm, except with subcontractors who have agreed to abide by its privacy policy and other rules. If you do not wish Miller Thomson to use your contact information in this manner, please notify us at newsletters@millerthomson.com and include "Privacy Request" in the subject line.