Business Law Case Studies and Analysis

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
BUSINESS LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW
Evans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31, 2008 SCC 20 (CanLII).
Although the decision of the court way prima Faice seem like unfair to the employee, the court in
this case has correctly come to a decision that in some situation it is required for the dismissed
employee to mitigate damages by working for the same employer. The circumstances include
that there are no barriers to re-employment. However it is a known fact that barriers to
reemployment are mostly present. This may include privacy, discrimination or unfair treatment
on the part of the employer.
Brazeau v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 2004 BCCA 645 (CanLII).
The argument of the defendant was that the claimant had committed an act which was within the
scope of sexual harassment. This means that because of the action the claimant can be dismissed
from work without any notice under the rules of a summary dismissal. The argument on the part
of the claimant was that the defendant had failed to justify the fact that the actions of the
claimant justified the summary dismissal. The justification for holding the employer responsible
when one employee is found to have harassed another employee is that the employer is
vicariously liable for the actions of all employees. The employer is also liable to ensure the
safety of the employees in the workplace. Thus in this situation as the claimant and the young
girl were both employees of the union the act of one person to harm the safety of another would
make the employee liable. In the present situation if the claimant is successful in relation to the
wrongful dismissal claim, the employer should have ensured that they gave him a reasonable 24
months notice of termination or make payment in lieu of the notice.