Case Analysis: Joyce Cheung V The Boss Bakery and Hong, 2007 BCHRT 26
- Name of the Case – Joyce Cheung V The Boss Bakery and Hong, 2007 BCHRT 26
- Year – 2006
- Province – British Colombia
- The case was decided by the court
- Expert administrative of the human rights tribunal British Colombia
- The dispute involved the three parties. The plaintiff, Ms Cheung alleges that the Boss Bakery and its owner Mr. Lai Yeung Hong terminated her on the basis of sex. She alleged that her former employer terminated her employment due to her objection to engaging in sexual relations with the owner, Mr. Hong. She claims damages for wrongful dismissal as well as damages for mental distress and punitive damages.
- The respondents requested that the plaintiff’s claim for abuse of human rights be deferred as they awaited the outcome of the wrongful dismissal Action.
- The adjudicator on July 14, 2006, made a decision to sustain the claim for damages on the violation of Ms. Cheung’s human rights. The adjudicator denies the respondents application to defer the claim on human rights.
The mitigating factors in the in Joyce Cheung V The Boss Bakery and Hong, 2007 BCHRT 26 and Steen V Northern Canada Power Commission, 1981 CanLII 1164 (AQ BQ) are not the same. In the case for Steen V Northern Canada Power station, the plaintiff had resulted to the grievances procedure while in Joyce Cheung V The Boss Bakery and Hong the plaintiff sought damages on violation of human rights. While the two cases pertained wrongful dismissal, the actions taken by Steen under Public Service Staff relations Act has more effect on the decision.
Summary dismissal applies in cases where an employee engages in serious misconduct that proves it unreasonable to continue having the employee under contract. Such misconduct includes theft, fraud, actions that risk the safety of the employee and the reputation of the employer and assault among others. Managers at my workplace understand this and ensure that employees get notices for dismissal if the basis for dismissal is not serious misconduct.