An Overview of Vehicle Benefits

Many terminated employees seek the replacement of vehicle benefits which they enjoyed as a part of their job. I thought it would be useful to review this issue, and provide a comprehensive summary.

Sometimes vehicle benefits are awarded in wrongful dismissal suits, other times they are not. Though on first glance the case law seems erratic, a careful review of this area reveals substantial consistency. In order to understand whether compensation for vehicle benefits should be awarded, one must simply understand the principles underlying damage awards in wrongful dismissal suits.

Stated briefly, when a plaintiff receives judgment in a wrongful dismissal case, the monetary award is supposed to place that plaintiff in the position she would have been in had she received proper working notice.

EXAMPLE 1: Y fired X. While employed by Y, X had been authorized to use Y’s truck to run personal errands. In order to maintain that benefit, X must now pay $400 per month out of his own pocket. In court, X wins a wrongful dismissal suit and the court determines that he was entitled to six months’ notice. X would then receive 6 x $400 = $2, 400 for his lost truck allowance.

EXAMPLE 2: B fired A. While A worked for B, B compensated her $0.30 for every kilometer she drove in her own car for work purposes. On average, she drove 1, 000 km per month on business, and was reimbursed $300 per month accordingly. At trial, B proves she was wrongfully terminated, and was entitled to six months’ notice. Since she is no longer employed, however, she now drives 0 km for work purposes. Thus, unlike X, A would probably recover nothing for lost use of her car. A did not receive a car allowance, but compensation for use of the vehicle for business purposes.

The difference between A and X in the above examples is that X proved he was spending money to replace a benefit. His personal vehicle use had been compensated during his employment, and it continued after his termination. In A’s case, she had only been compensated for business use, which obviously ceased as soon as she was terminated.

While some cases do not follow the principles outlined herein, most cases do. The following list summarizes what one must generally establish in order to claim vehicle benefits upon termination. The presence of all of the following factors strongly suggests that compensation for the loss of vehicle benefits is appropriate. The absence of any of these factors suggests that no benefits are recoverable. This list is not entirely comprehensive, and I note that certain cases defy the generalities outlined below:

• The employee was wrongfully terminated (i.e. the employer did not have just cause to terminate, nor did it provide reasonable notice).
• The termination resulted in the employee losing some personal vehicle benefit which had previously been paid for by the employer.
• The employee replaced that benefit and incurred some expense in doing so.

Jamieson v. Finning International Inc.

On June 12, 2009, the BC Supreme Court awarded a 53 year old "Millyard Systems Manager" with slightly more than 20 years' service, damages based on a 19 month notice period, with a one month deduction for the possibility of mitigation earnings, as the decision was handed down well in advance of the expiry of the notice period.

The full decision is at Jamieson v. Finning 2009 BCSC 861.

Reference was made to the specialization of the plaintiff's skills which were focused on forestry millyard equipment in the depressed economy.

Mr. Jamieson was awarded lump sum damages to compensate for the loss of a car allowance including a component to reflect ongoing lease commitments for a leased truck not needed after the termination.

Judge Cohen undertook a thorough review of recent British Columbia cases where the courts have given decreased weight to the factor of character of employment - where employees not in senior management ranks are increasingly able to obtain lengthy notice periods.

The plaintiff was also compensated for loss of Employee Share Purchase Plan ("ESPP") benefits during the notice period in spite of language which said such benefits ended when the employee was dismissed for "any reason". Regardless of this language, damages were found appropriate as the termination of the plaintiff was not lawful, but a breach of contract. In effect the judge found that the employment agreement should be read as if written "any lawful reason".

Jamieson's claim continues in regard to pension losses. He is advancing a claim that Finning unlawfully decreased the earnings upon which it agreed to pay pension benefits, and a further pension claim because his pension is less after the wrongful dismissal than it would have been if he had received proper notice.