Assignment:
Write a Case Analysis. Select one case from the list provided.
Scenario
You are a departmental manager in a medium sized firm. The CEO is reviewing and updating the firm's policies. The CEO has asked you to draft a Case Analysis in order to provide policy guidance to meet the firm's legal obligations.
Structure. Draft paper in 4 parts: Introduction, Rules, Analysis, Conclusion.
Introduction. Set out the aim of the paper in one clear sentence. For example: "The aim of this analysis is to provide the legal background for the adoption of a firm-wide harassment program". Complete the paragraph with a short restatement of the problem; give it context.
Rules. Set out the legal regime that guides your policy development. Explain how the regulations govern policy options.
Analysis. Describe the tension between the regime and the current situation. Explain the consequences to the firm of the outcome of the case.
Conclusion. Summarise your findings and recommend reasonable and viable policy options for the CEO.
Layout. Introduction: 2 paragraphs at most. Rules: as much as it takes to clearly explain the law. Analysis: the main effort - 2 to 2.5 pages. Conclusion and your recommendation: 3 to 4 paragraphs should do it. You are writing for a busy CEO, so be concise and clear.
Case: Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 2015 SCC 10
Suspension with pay may constitute "constructive dismissal"
Mr. Potter was the Executive Director of the New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission. While the parties were negotiating a buyout of Mr. Potter's contract, Mr. Potter commenced a sick leave. In response, the employer wrote to Mr. Potter to advise him not to return to work until he was provided further direction. In the meanwhile, Mr. Potter was suspended with pay, and his powers were delegated to someone else. Mr. Potter sued for constructive dismissal.
The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with Mr. Potter, finding that Mr. Potter had been constructively dismissed, "[i]n light of the indefinite duration of the suspension, of the fact that the Commission failed to act in good faith insofar as it withheld valid business reasons from Mr. Potter, and of the Commission's concealed intention to have Mr. Potter terminated."