Stone v. HJ Hotels (2000), 227 N.B.R.(2d) 212 (TD);
227 R.N.-B.(2e) 212; 583 A.P.R. 212
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Temp. Cite: [2000] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.060
David Stone (plaintiff) v. H.J. Hotels Limited Partnership and H.J. Hotels Incorporated (defendants)
(F/C/486/96)
Indexed As: Stone v. H.J. Hotels Limited Partnership et al.
New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench
Trial Division
Judicial District of Fredericton
Russell, J.
May 3, 2000.
Summary:
Stone, who worked as a dishwasher at a motel’s restaurant, sued the motel owners for wrongful dismissal.
The New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, Trial Division, allowed Stone’s action against the defendant.
Master and Servant – Topic 7904
Dismissal without cause – General – Circumstances when dismissal not justified – [See
Master and Servant – Topic 8303
].
Master and Servant – Topic 8000
Dismissal without cause – Notice of dismissal – What constitutes reasonable notice – Stone worked as a dishwasher at a motel’s restaurant for approximately 16 years – Stone sued the defendants, the motel owners, for wrongful dismissal – Stone asserted that his employment was continuous when the defendants took over managing the restaurant from the lessee – The defendant asserted that it did not employ Stone because it had only assumed control of the restaurant after Stone’s employer suffered a business loss – The New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, Trial Division, held that Stone was wrongfully dismissed and the appropriate notice period was 13 months – See paragraph 15.
Master and Servant – Topic 8303
Employment and labour standards – General – Application of statute – Stone worked as a dishwasher at a motel’s restaurant for approximately 16 years – Stone sued the defendants, the motel owners, for wrongful dismissal – Stone asserted that when the defendants took over managing the restaurant from the lessee his employment continued with the defendants pursuant to s. 89 of the Employment Standards Act – The defendants asserted that they did not employ Stone because they had only assumed control of the restaurant after Stone’s employer suffered a business loss – The New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, Trial Division, held that Stone was wrongfully dismissed because his employment was continuous under s. 89 of the Act.
Master and Servant – Topic 8307
Employment and labour standards – Interpretation of legislation – Stone, who worked as a dishwasher at a motel’s restaurant for approximately 16 years, sued the defendants, the motel owners, for wrongful dismissal – Stone asserted that when the defendants took over managing the restaurant from the lessee his employment continued with the defendants pursuant to s. 89 of the Employment Standards Act – The defendant asserted that it did not employ Stone because it had only assumed control of the restaurant after Stone’s employer suffered a business loss – The New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, Trial Division, discussed interpreting the Act, holding that provisions that protect employees in the Act should be given a broad interpretation – See paragraphs 12 and 13.
Master and Servant – Topic 8404
Employment and labour standards – Layoff or dismissal – Notice – [See
Master and Servant – Topic 8000
].
Master and Servant – Topic 8405
Employment and labour standards – Layoff or dismissal – Dismissal without cause – What constitutes – [See
Master and Servant – Topic 8303
].
Master and Servant – Topic 8445
Employment and labour standards – Layoff or dismissal – Payments or compensation – Requirement of continuous employment – [See
Master and Servant – Topic 8303
].
Cases Noticed:
Addison v. Loeb (M.) Ltd. (1984), 45 O.R.(2d) 399 (H.C.), revd. (1986), 13 O.A.C. 392; 53 O.R.(2d) 602 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].
Snodgrass v. Brunswick Chrysler Plymouth Ltd. et al. (1990), 98 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 248 A.P.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 9].
Sorel v. Tomenson Saunders Whitehead Ltd. et al. (1987), 39 D.L.R.(4th) 460 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].
Cormier v. Royal Canadian Legion, Saint John Branch No. 14 (1994), 154 N.B.R.(2d) 335; 395 A.P.R. 335 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].
Lefebvre v. HOJ Industries Ltd.; Machtinger v. HOJ Industries Ltd., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 986; 136 N.R. 40; 53 O.A.C. 200; 91 D.L.R.(4th) 491; 40 C.C.E.L. 1, refd to. [para. 12].
Bramble et al. v. Medis Health and Pharmaceutical Services Inc. (1999), 214 N.B.R.(2d) 111; 547 A.P.R. 111 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].
Statutes Noticed:
Employment Standards Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. E-7.2, sect. 89 [para. 6].
Counsel:
David W. McMath, for the plaintiff;
John M. Hanson, Q.C., for the defendants.
This matter was heard on April 28, 2000, by Russell, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Fredericton, who delivered the following decision on May 3, 2000.
