Cumberland v. Maritime College: Lessons in termination law and damages introduction

Law360 Canada (December 19, 2024, 9:54 AM EST) --

Archit Gupta

Roderick Cumberland, a long-serving (with approximately seven years’ tenure) academic instructor at the Maritime College of Forest Technology, faced significant challenges at work. His strict methods, differing opinions and conflicts with staff and students culminated in his termination for cause. The trial court found that Cumberland’s actions indeed reflected the issues raised by his employer. However, both the trial and appellate courts held there was no cause for termination due to the lack of progressive discipline.

The trial court awarded Cumberland seven months’ pay, based on the “principle” of awarding one month of notice per year of service. The trial court did not award any aggravative or punitive damages. While the Court of Appeal critiqued the formulaic approach used to calculate notice, it upheld the principle of deferring to the trial court. The appellate court also clarified that appeals are not an opportunity to re-litigate a matter.

Court of Appeal

Cumberland appealed the trial court’s decision, raising two primary issues:


Notice

The trial judge applied a formulaic approach to calculate notice, which awarded one month per year of service. The appellate court, however, reiterated that determining reasonable notice is an art, not a science. Courts have long established that a rigid formula does not reflect the nuanced considerations necessary in these cases.

Despite the error in the trial court’s reasoning, the appellate court emphasized deference to the lower court’s judgment. It clarified that as long as the awarded amount falls within the reasonable range of notice, the principle underlying the decision does not necessarily warrant overturning the ruling. Here, the appellate court found seven months’ notice to fall within that range.

Special damages

This case reaffirms the difficulty of obtaining special damages in wrongful dismissal actions. The appellate court found that the employer’s actions, though flawed, did not amount to egregious conduct or bad faith.

In Ontario, courts have set a high bar for awarding special damages in employment cases, requiring evidence of the employer’s intent, malice or blatant disregard for the employee’s rights. This rigorous standard ensures that such damages are only awarded in cases of particularly egregious conduct. Similarly, in New Brunswick, the courts focus on whether the award of special damages is rational and serves its intended purposes — deterrence, denunciation, and retribution. Together, these approaches reflect a consistent application of principles across Canadian jurisdictions.

This case serves as a valuable reminder in employment law disputes that a defendant’s missteps — such as sloppiness or carelessness — while potentially problematic, may not rise to the high threshold required for awarding special damages.

Conclusion

The decision in Cumberland v. Maritime College of Forest Technology, [2024] N.B.J. No. 275 underscores important principles in wrongful dismissal law. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s notice award despite the flawed reasoning, emphasizing the deference owed to lower courts when their conclusions fall within reasonable parameters. The ruling also serves as a reminder that special damages remain challenging to obtain, requiring clear evidence of egregious or malicious conduct.

Finally, this case highlights the importance of progressive discipline in establishing just cause and serves as a cautionary tale for employers aiming to navigate the complexities of termination law with fairness and compliance. 

Archit Gupta is an employment lawyer and an associate at Monkhouse Law. He can be reached at archit.gupta@monkhouselaw.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.   

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.