Jugement récent: indemnité de départ de 12 mois pour un représentant des ventes de 55 ans comptant 20 ans d’ancienneté

Par Me Paul-Matthieu Grondin

Dans la cause Insogna c. American Orthodontics Corporation, un représentant des ventes de 55 ans, comptant 20 ans d’ancienneté, s’est fait accorder 12 mois d’indemnité de départ.

Outre sa demande d’indemnité de départ, le juge s’est prononcé favorablement quant à sa demande de dommages moraux, vu la façon cavalière dont on avait tenté de lui justifier son départ :

[43]        There are essentially four assertions made by AO in the January 26 Letter regarding Mr. Insogna’s employment: (1) that his sales performance was inadequate; (2) that his inability to meet the 2018 sales target was on account of his own failures; (3) that AO had received multiple complaints regarding his behaviour and lack of professionalism; and (4) that he was unprepared and lacked commitment.

(…)

[72]        The evidence establishes that in the January 26 Letter, AO made assertions impugning Mr. Insogna’s behaviour, professionalism, competence and client relationships that were unfounded and hence foreseeably hurtful, humiliating and degrading. Not only were these assertions unnecessary in the circumstances giving rise to the January 26 Letter, the evidence shows that there was no reasonable basis for making them.

[73]        In response to the January 21 demand letter it had received from Mr. Insogna’s counsel, AO was entitled to fairly express its view of Mr. Insogna’s performance. AO was entitled to state that it was unhappy with its market share in Eastern Canada, unsatisfied with Mr. Insogna’s efforts to expand his client base to overcome client departures and unconvinced of his ability to grow the business in a manner that would achieve the corporation’s goals.

[74]        Instead, AO acted in a high-handed and cavalier fashion. This was no way to treat a 20-year employee whose record, as reflected in the documentary evidence, was virtually unblemished.

La Cour a ainsi accordé 7000$ de dommages moraux au demandeur, ce qui est dans les normes de la jurisprudence.

Elle a cependant rejeté sa demande quant au remboursement de ses honoraires d’avocat, en insistant sur la différence entre une demande de sanction au sujet d’une conduite abusive dans le congédiement (les dommages moraux) et une demande de sanction au sujet de procédures abusives (le remboursement des honoraires d’avocat) pour laquelle les critères de succès sont plus difficiles à atteindre.