However, the notice period was reduced from the potential maximum because the worker had advanced knowledge that her employment wouldn’t continue indefinitely following the business sale.
The court stated: “Based on the evidence, it is clear that [the worker] was aware she would not be in her position with [the employer] indefinitely. Following the sale of the initial stake in [the employer], the purchaser advised both [her husband] and [the worker] that upon completion of the purchase, both of them would be phased out.”
Appeal allowed with increased compensation awarded
The appeal court overturned the application judge’s classification: “When [the worker’s] role at [the employer] is reviewed in light of all the relevant factors, I conclude she was not a casual employee. Her entitlement to reasonable notice of the termination of her employment should not have been predicated on her classification as a casual employee.”
The court awarded 18 months’ notice instead of the original six months: “Considering the relevant [legal factors] and excluding irrelevant considerations such as part-time status, I find that a reasonable notice period for [the worker] is 18 months.”
The final judgment stated: “Given a reasonable notice period of 18 months at a salary of $5,000 per month, [the worker] is entitled to judgment in the amount of $90,000, less the one month of salary paid at the time of termination and minus any additional amounts already paid pursuant to the judgment of the Applications Judge.”