Question

Find the case of Hnatiuk v. R.W. Gibson Consulting Services Ltd., 2005 (February) ABQB 78 (CanLII). It will be helpful to read the case in its entirety before answering the following question. With respect to the issue of calculation of damages in a wrongful dismissal situation, which one of the following is FALSE? Select one: a. The appropriate standard of review by an appellate court with respect to the issue of damages for wrongful dismissal is whether the trial judge erred by applying the wrong test or in determining a notice period that is not within the appropriate range – i.e. either too high or too low. b. The appellate court held that the trial judge erred in principle when calculating damages and that she should have considered different factors in her calculation. c. When considering the age of the Respondent Hnatiuk in the calculation of damages, the appellate court found that the Respondent would likely have found it easier to secure replacement employment as compared to either a younger or much older sales manager. d. The appellate court held that a reasonable notice period would be 6 months for the Respondent Hnatiuk, who had been employed by the Appellant R.W. Gibson for just less than one year.

Answer 1

In the wake of perusing the instance of Hnatiuk's wrong rejection, the explanation which I find is false out of the given articulations is:-

b. The preliminary judge held that the Respondent Hnatiuk had not been wrongly rejected, and that the Appellant R.W. Gibson had been supported in the rejection because of the Respondent's contemptibility.

The above articulation is false as the preliminary judge held that the Respondent Hnatiuk had been wrongly expelled and R.W. Gibson had not advocated as Hnatiuk had not gotten any heading with respect to lacking or ill-advised execution.