Question

Stuart Johnson And Global Television Network Inc. a wholly owned subsidiary of CanWest Global Communications Corp. doing business as CH Vancouver Island. 
An issue in this appeal is whether the respondent, Stuart Johnson, was required to retire from his employment with the appellant, Global Television Network Inc. ("Global"), on the first day of the month following his 65th birthday.  In the event that Mr. Johnson was not required to retire on that day, there is an issue of whether pension benefits received by Mr. Johnson after his 65th birthday should have been deducted from the award of damages for wrongful dismissal made in his favour. 
In assessing the damage the judge did not deduct the pension benefits paid to Mr. Johnson during the notice period after his 65th birthday. 
ISSUE: Was the term in the pension plan document requiring the retirement at the age 65 legally enforceable?
DECISION:
an employer must turn his mind to any exceptions that may be made with respect to a company retirement policy and communicate to an employee its intention to either exercise or refuse to exercise any discretion afforded.No documentary evidence exists stating that retirement at the age of 65 is mandatory in this case.  It was never an express term of any employment contract between the parties.  There was no written employment contract between these parties.  And given the evidence with regard to company documents that referred to early and/or postponed retirement, it cannot be said that mandatory retirement was an implied term in the employment contract between these parties.
In my prospective the required term was enforceable and Johnson was just qualified for wages and advantages up to his obligatory retirement date.
A)  yes, the employer rely on the single incident because any other incident is not mentioned here.
B) No, the court did not find that the employee was engaged in misconduct. He was just eligible for getting the advantages.
C) The cumulative point was that weather the benefits received should be deducted for the damages done.
D) The court find out that pension benefits of Mr. Johnson should not be deducted during the notice period after his 65th birthday.
E) No, the employer do not have the cause for summary dismissal because the employee did not do any illegal work or he have not done any work of dishonesty.
F) As the employer did not have any cause so the judge did not deduct the benefits paid to Mr. Johnson.

Answer the following ques based on this case..

Were the mitigating factors the same? Are there certain mitigating factors that seem to have more influence on the end decision? Do you think that the managers and supervisors that you work with understand summary dismissal and proportionality, and use it appropriately?

Answer 1

Step 1

Were the mitigating factors the same?

Yes, There was no written document stating that retirement at the age of 65 is manfatory. Further theren is no written contract between employer and employee.Moreover there is no intimation to the employee about intention of the employer to retire the employee at the age of 65.

Step 2

Are there certain mitigating factors that seem to have more influence on the end decision?

No, there is no specific mitigating factor that seem to have influence the end decision.

Step 3

Do you think that the manags and supervisors that you work with understand summary dismissal and proportionately, and use it appropriately.

N,tt is not required unless there is proper communication between employer and employee supported by appropriate proof and evidences.