A recent Ontario Superior Court decision provides a cautionary reminder that not every workplace dispute gives rise to constructive dismissal. In Poesl v. Sharon Veterinary Clinic Professional Corporation, the Court dismissed a long-service employee’s claim after finding that her refusal to return to work—unless her employer complied with a specific demand—amounted to a resignation rather than constructive dismissal.

The decision is particularly significant for both employers and employees navigating workplace safety concerns, accommodation issues, and disputes over employer decision-making. It also highlights the evidentiary burden required to support claims for constructive dismissal, human rights damages, and failure to mitigate.

A Long-Service Veterinarian Leaves the Workplace

The plaintiff was a veterinarian who had worked at a small clinic for approximately 20 years. She earned income through a combination of hourly wages and bonuses tied to client billings, with annual earnings of approximately $86,732.

The events giving rise to the dispute began with an incident involving a lost pet and subsequent threatening behaviour by the pet owner’s partner toward clinic staff. The clinic owner took immediate steps to address the situation, including contacting police, implementing a “no service” policy for the client, and advising staff of safety measures.

Despite these measures, the plaintiff later refused to return to work unless the employer sent a formal “termination letter” to the client.

The Central Issue: Constructive Dismissal or Resignation?

The key legal question before the Court was whether the employer’s refusal to send the requested termination letter constituted constructive dismissal or whether the plaintiff effectively resigned by refusing to return to work.

The Plaintiff’s Position

The plaintiff argued that:

• The workplace had become unsafe due to the prior threats;
• The employer’s refusal to send a termination letter was unreasonable;
• Her inability to return to work was supported by a doctor’s note; and
• She was therefore constructively dismissed and entitled to up to 24 months’ notice.

She also advanced claims for moral damages and damages under the Human Rights Code.

The Employer’s Position

The employer argued that:

• Appropriate steps had already been taken to address the safety concerns;
• Sending a termination letter could escalate the situation;
• The plaintiff’s demand was unreasonable; and
• Her refusal to return to work constituted a failure to mitigate or a resignation.

The Court’s Analysis: A Practical, “Common Sense” Approach

The Court framed the dispute in a straightforward way: if the employer was legally obligated to send the termination letter, then refusing to do so could support constructive dismissal. If not, the employee’s refusal to return to work would amount to resignation.

Employer’s Response Was Reasonable

The Court found that the employer acted appropriately and responsibly by:

• Contacting the police immediately;
• Ensuring police warned the individual involved;
• Implementing a strict “no service” policy;
• Alerting security systems; and
• Communicating safety measures to staff.

Importantly, there was no evidence that professional regulatory rules required the clinic to send a termination letter to the client.

The Employee’s Demand Was Unreasonable

The Court concluded that the plaintiff’s insistence on a termination letter was not justified. The employer’s refusal was based on a legitimate concern that such a letter could inflame the situation.

As a result, the plaintiff’s refusal to return to work unless the demand was met was found to be unreasonable.

Constructive Dismissal Requires an Objective Breach

A central takeaway from the decision is that constructive dismissal requires an objective and substantial change to a fundamental term of employment.

Here, the Court found no such change. The employer had not:

• Reduced compensation;
• Altered job duties in a fundamental way; or
• Created a poisoned work environment.

Instead, the employer had taken reasonable steps to ensure workplace safety.

The Court emphasized that subjective dissatisfaction or disagreement with an employer’s decision is not enough to establish constructive dismissal.

Refusal to Work Amounted to Resignation

Because the employer’s actions were reasonable, the Court held that the plaintiff’s refusal to return to work amounted to a “de facto resignation.” This finding was central to the dismissal of the claim.

The Court also addressed the employer’s request for the return of clinic keys—an action sometimes associated with termination—and concluded that, in context, it was reasonable given the plaintiff’s stated intention not to return.

Hypothetical Notice Period: 20 Months

Although the claim was dismissed, the Court provided guidance on what the notice period would have been had constructive dismissal been established.

Given the plaintiff’s 20 years of service, professional status, and role within a small practice, the Court indicated that it would have awarded approximately 20 months’ reasonable notice—effectively one month per year of service.

This observation underscores the significant financial exposure employers may face in long-service employment relationships.

Failure to Mitigate and Lack of Evidence

The Court also noted deficiencies in the plaintiff’s evidence regarding mitigation. While the plaintiff eventually obtained alternative employment, there was:

• No evidence of job search efforts during a lengthy period of unemployment; and
• No medical evidence demonstrating an inability to work.

This lack of evidence would have impacted any damages award even if liability had been established.

Dismissal of Moral and Human Rights Claims

The Court rejected the plaintiff’s claims for moral damages and damages under the Human Rights Code.

No Bad Faith Conduct

There was no evidence that the employer acted in a manner that was unfair, insensitive, or in bad faith during the employment relationship or its breakdown.

No Established Disability or Discrimination

The only medical evidence was a general doctor’s note suggesting the workplace issue needed to be resolved. The Court found this insufficient to establish a recognized disability or failure to accommodate.

As a result, all additional human rights or discrimination damages claims were dismissed.

Constructive Dismissal Claims Require Practical Analysis

Poesl v. Sharon Veterinary Clinic Professional Corporation serves as a clear reminder that constructive dismissal claims are highly fact-specific and require an objective assessment of the employer’s conduct. Even in emotionally charged situations involving workplace safety, courts will apply a practical and evidence-based analysis.

For employees, the decision highlights the risks of imposing unilateral conditions on a return to work. For employers, it reinforces the importance of taking reasonable, well-documented steps to address workplace concerns.

Contact Haynes Law Firm for Constructive Dismissal Advice in Toronto

If you are dealing with a potential constructive dismissal, workplace safety dispute, or termination issue, obtaining timely legal advice is essential. Paulette Haynes assists both employers and employees with constructive dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims, workplace safety and accommodation disputes, and risk management. Contact Haynes Law Firm to discuss your complex employment law issue by calling (416) 593-2731 or reaching out online.