In Lounsbury v. Dakota Tipi First Nation, [2011] M.J. No. 138, Judge Saull, of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench (Winnipeg Centre), found in favor of Bonnie Lounsbury, a health care services coordinator who was employed by the Dakota Tipi First Nation. She was awarded $143,965.95 in damages, “solicitor-client costs” (unknown amount) and $10,000 in punitive damages after bringing suit for wrongful dismissal.
The conduct that I have outlined above speaks for itself. Each item identified supports the overall suggestion that the defendant’s behaviour before, during and after the trial of this matter was high-handed, malicious and reprehensible. Considered at once, however, the behaviour of the defendant can for certain be described as outrageous and deserving of punishment, deterrence and denunciation. The conduct that I refer to bears repeating, even if only in summary form:
(1) withholding the plaintiff’s expense cheque without justification;
(2) unceremoniously throwing the plaintiff off the reserve on the basis of a trumped-up petition;
(3) terminating the plaintiff without notice or warning or offer of pay in lieu of notice;
(4) notifying members of the community of the plaintiff’s termination before notifying the plaintiff;
(5) not having the common decency to speak directly to the plaintiff;
(6) lying about the reason for dismissal, i.e., ordering Melanie Pashe to distribute the Fact Sheet and accusing the plaintiff of non-compliance with a direction by issuing the Fact Sheet;
(7) lying about the fact that the plaintiff deliberately failed to comply with a direction in order to terminate employment with the defendant and pursue an employment opportunity with Health Canada as the basis of a counterclaim;
(8) misleading the community with respect to why the plaintiff had left the employ of the defendant and the reserve, creating a perception of being dismissed for cause;
(9) posting disturbing comments on Facebook at 3:26 p.m., on June 8, 2010, immediately after the defendant’s case collapsed due to Chief Pashe’s admitted lying on the stand;
(10) refusing to remove the Facebook posting;
(11) making threats to the plaintiff by Councillor Pashe;
(12) emotionally traumatizing a vulnerable plaintiff by raising a defence based on total fabrication;
(13) filing a counterclaim to secure damages from the plaintiff, i.e., attempting to get something for nothing;
(14) making serious allegations amounting to fraud or moral turpitude in a manner in which the plaintiff could not respond;
(15) damaging the plaintiff’s reputation in a small community where she had worked for a number of years and was a well-known member of the public;
(16) pursuing the litigation which dragged on for three years as a result of a contrived defence; and
(17) overall putting into effect a scheme that was planned and deliberate.
Turtle Talk 