Nunavut appeal court dismisses staffer’s suit against power corporation

The Nunavut Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court decision and denied a civil suit against Qulliq Energy Corporation April 24 in which former staffer Sarah Kucera had been seeking $440,000 in damages for being wrongfully dismissed. (FILE PHOTO)

A former employee of the Qulliq Energy Corporation has lost an appeal in a civil case in which she sought more than $400,000 in damages for wrongful dismissal.

A judgment from the Nunavut Court of Appeal, handed down April 24 and released to the public May 15, has upheld the trial judge’s conclusion that Sarah Kucera was not wrongfully dismissed and thus denied her appeal.

Kucera was hired at Qulliq in 2009 as executive assistant to the president of the corporation.

According to court documents, that job changed over time as did her relationship with the power corporation’s director of human resources, and later the president.

“Ms. Kucera enjoyed the support of the President until June 2010, when she received a stern letter from him clarifying the terms of her employment,” said the April 24 appeal judgment from justices Ronald Berger, Patricia Rowbotham and Russell Brown.

“The letter addressed job expectations, and the process for reviewing performance and dealing with complaints,” the judgment says.

In summer 2010, Kucera took a vacation and then a period of sick leave. “By this time, she was considering her future with Qulliq and was discussing looking for another job,” the judgment says. “She consulted a lawyer and contemplated commencing a lawsuit against Qulliq.”

Letters from lawyers went back and forth in August 2010 and it’s the content, and interpretation of those letters that formed the crux of the case.

Kucera’s lawyers accused Qulliq of constructive dismissal by removing “core duties” from her position and by making “significant changes in terms of her duties, responsibilities and reporting structure,” suggesting her authority had been diminished — according to a case summary in the appeal judgment.

That summary from court documents continues to quote the August 2010 letter to Qulliq from Kucera’s lawyer which says, “our client is reluctantly prepared to enter in negotiations for an appropriate termination package.“

The appeal summary then quotes Qulliq’s written response to Kucera: “The critical relationship of trust and confidence which must exist… has been irreparably broken… Considering the seriousness of your employment offence, as well as several previous indiscretions [Qulliq] has just cause for your direct dismissal.”

In their decision, the appeal judges sided with the lower court decision that Kucera’s letter to Qulliq was effectively a “repudiation of her employment contract,” since it “demonstrates Ms. Kucera’s intention to remain during the negotiation of a termination package.”