This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
CITY OF VANCOUVER
NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM
This action has been started by the Plaintiff for the relief set out in Part 2 below.
If you intend to respond to this action, you or your lawyer must:
(a) file a Response to Civil Claim in Form 2 in the above-named registry of this court within the time for Response to Civil Claim described below, and
(b) serve a copy of the filed Response to Civil Claim on the Plaintiff.
If you intend to make a counterclaim, you or your lawyer must
(a) file a Response to Civil Claim in Form 2 and a Counterclaim in Form 3 in the above-named registry of this court within the time for Response to Civil Claim described below, and
(b) serve a copy of the filed Response to Civil Claim and Counterclaim on the Plaintiff and on any new parties named in the Counterclaim.
TIME FOR RESPONSE TO CIVIL CLAIM
JUDGMENT MA Y BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST YOU IF YOU FAIL to file the Response to Civil Claim within the time for Response to Civil Claim described below.
A Response to Civil Claim must be filed and served on the Plaintiff,
(a) if you reside anywhere in Canada, within 21 days after the date on which a copy of the filed Notice of Civil Claim was served on you,
CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF
(b) if you reside in the United States of America, within 35 days after the date on which a copy of the filed Notice of Civil Claim was served on you,
. ( c) if you reside elsewhere, within 49 days after the date on which a copy of the filed Notice of Civil Claim was served on you, or
(d) if the time for Response to Civil Claim has been set by order of the court, within that time.
1. The Plaintiff, Carlene Robbins, is unemployed and resides at
Vancouver, British Columbia. --------
PART 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS
2. The Defendant, City of Vancouver (the "City"), is a corporation and municipality pursuant to the Vancouver Charter, S.B.C. 1953, c. 55, with its municipal offices at 453 West 12th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia.
3. In or about 1973 the Plaintiff entered into an oral contract of employment with the Defendant whereby the Defendant employed the Plaintiff as a Clerk Typist I.
4. In or around 1998, the Plaintiff was promoted to Manager of By-law Administration.
5. In or around 1999, in addition to her duties as Manager of By-law Administration, the Plaintiff was asked to establish a temporary Coordinated Enforcement Division (the "CED") in order to develop a co-ordinated and more efficient approach between various departments and authorities in respect of inspecting and enforcing various by-law infractions, with an initial focus on properties with marijuana growing operations.
6. At the time that the CED was created, the Plaintiff reported to her immediate supervisor Barb Windsor.
7. In or around 2004, the CED became a permanent program for the Defendant and the CED was expanded to include enforcement of various other by-law infractions, with a particular focus on shortening time frames to bring properties which had repeated by-law infractions (the "Problem Properties") into compliance with the by-laws.
8. In respect of the CED, the Plaintiff was responsible for among other things:
(a) setting up the initial funding requirements to create the CED;
- 3 -
(b) establishing communication protocols between the various city departments including but not limited to:
(i) the Licenses and Inspection Division;
(ii) the Vancouver Police Department;
(iii) the Fire and Rescue Department;
(iv) the Engineering Services Department;
(v) the Legal Department;
(vi) the Housing Department;
(vii) the Development Services Department; and
(viii) the City Clerks Department;
(c) establishing communication protocols with outside agencies including but not limited to:
(i) the Ministry of Income Assistance;
(ii) BC Housing;
(iii) the Ministry of Health; and
(iv) the Office of the Public Trustee;
(d) developing co-ordinated enforcement policies and procedures;
( e ) hiring staff;
(f) creating training manuals and programs for all inspection disciplines;
(g) developing monthly workshops on Problem Properties for Property Use Inspectors;
(h) deciding on an appropriate enforcement methodology to be utilized for each problem specific Problem Property;
(i) creating by-law amendments;
G) preparing and presenting reports to City Council;
(k) preparing coordinated enforcement orders; .
(1) managing the Problem Property files through the process of resolution; and
- 4 -
(m) managing the day-to-day operations of the CED.
9. In or around May, 2007, the Plaintiff was promoted to Manager of the Property Use Inspections Branch and received a raise in salary. At that time, the Plaintiff continued to manage and oversee the CED and further enhanced the role of the Property Use Inspectors as the Lead on Coordinated Enforcement issues.
10. In or around March, 2010, Ms. Windsor retired. Her duties as Chief License Inspector were transferred to W.J. Johnston, however, all other coordinated enforcement responsibilities continued to be managed under the direction of the Plaintiff.
11. On or about December 21, 2010, a fire occurred at a Problem Property located at 2862 Pandora Street, Vancouver, British Columbia (the "Fire").
12. On or about January 4,2011, and in response to the Fire, the Defendant created the Senior Strategic Committee to oversee the CED and the Problem Properties, of which the Plaintiff was a member. The Plaintiff was asked to produce a list of her active Problem Properties which was to form the focus of the Senior Strategic Committee.
13. On or about January 14,2011, while the Plaintiff was faithfully performing her duties under the contract of employment, the Defendant unilaterally and substantially altered the terms of the Plaintiffs contract of employment by demoting the Plaintiffby eliminating her from any involvement with the CED and the Senior Strategic Committee.
14. Further to the unilateral changes referred to in paragraph 13, the Defendant altered the Plaintiffs working conditions by creating a work environment of hostility, embarrassment and humiliation.
15. On or about January 26,2011, the Plaintiff elected to treat the conduct of the Defendant referred to In paragraphs 13 and 14 herein as a repudiation of her contract of employment and to treat the contract of employment as having been terminated by the Defendant.
16. The conduct of the Defendant described in paragraphs 13 and 14 herein amounts to a dismissal of the Plaintiff from the Defendant's employment. That dismissal was effected without just cause and without any notice and constituted an arbitrary and wilful breach of the contract of employment.
17. At the date of her constructive dismissal, the Plaintiff was receiving a salary of$105,000 per annum.
18. In addition to the salary set out in paragraph 17, the Plaintiffs remuneration package at . the time of her termination included:
(a) basic medical insurance;
(b) extended health insurance;
( c) dental insurance;
- 5 -
(d) short term disability and long term disability;
(e) employer pension contributions;
(f) 32.5 vacation days per year; and
(g) 15 earned days off.
19. Payment of the Plaintiff s pension is based on an average of her five highest years of employment income with the Defendant.
20. At the date of her dismissal, the Plaintiff was 55 years old.
21. As a result of the Defendant's constructive dismissal of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has suffered special damages including expenses incurred in attempting to find new employment.
22. The Plaintiff has taken reasonable steps to mitigate her loss by seeking alternative, similar employment but has been unsuccessful.
PART 2: RELIEF SOUGHT
1. . General damages.
2. Special damages.
3. Interest pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 79.
1. In breach of the contract of employment between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff from her employment without any notice and without just cause for doing so.
5. Such further and honourable relief as this Court deems just.
PART 3: LEGAL BASIS
Plaintiffs address for service:
HAMILTON DUNCAN ARMSTRONG & STEWART #1450, 13401 - 108th Avenue
Surrey, BC V3 T 5T3
Fax number address for service (if any):
Email address for service (if any):
PLACE OF TRIAL: Vancouver, British Columbia
The address of the registry is:
The Law Courts
800 Smithe Street Vancouver, BC V6Z 2E1
I. Unless all parties of record consent or the court otherwise orders, each party of record to an action must,
within 35 days after the end of the pleading period: .
Rule 7-1(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states:
(a) prepare a list of documents in Form 22 that lists:
all documents that are or have been in the party's possession or control and that could, if available, be used by any party at trial to prove or disprove a material fact, and
all other documents to which the party intends to refer at trial, and
(b) serve the list on all parties of record.
PART 1: CONCISE SUMMARY OF NATURE OF CLAIM:
This is a wrongful dismissal action.
PART 2: THIS CLAIM ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING:
[Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case.]
A personal injury arising out of:
D a motor vehicle accident D medical malpractice
D another cause
A dispute concerning:
D contaminated sites
- 7 -
D construction defects
D real property (real estate) D personal property
D the provision of goods or services or other general commercial matters D investment losses
D the lending of money
0' an employment relationship
D a will or other issues concerning the probate of an estate D a matter not listed here
Part 3: THIS CLAIM INVOLVES:
D a class action D maritime law D aboriginal law
D constitutional law D conflict of laws D none of the above D do not know
The Plaintiff will rely on the following enactments:
(a) Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.79.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.