Grand Falls defeats former public works director’s dismissal and extra-pay claims

Grand Falls has won summary judgment dismissing former public works director Daniel Laforge’s constructive-dismissal and additional-pay claims, with a New Brunswick judge finding that his resignation was voluntary and that the evidence did not establish his entitlement to extra compensation.

Justice Stephen J. Doucet of the Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick issued Daniel Laforge v. Grand Falls, 2026 NBKB 162, on August 5, 2026. Laforge’s own summary judgment motion was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay the municipality $3,000 in costs plus allowable disbursements.

Both sides asked the court to decide the case without a conventional trial. Doucet found that their affidavits, documents and discovery evidence provided a sufficient record to resolve the dispute fairly, despite differences in their recollections.

Employer raised resignation, but coercion was not established

Laforge joined Grand Falls in 2010 and eventually became its permanent director of public works. In August 2021, the municipality placed him on paid administrative leave while investigating workplace allegations. He was advised that he could obtain legal advice or bring an adviser to a further meeting.

At that September 1 meeting, Laforge amended a resignation letter he had used the previous year and submitted an immediate resignation. The municipality accepted it. He argued that the circumstances, including discussion of possible police involvement, left him no realistic choice but to resign.

Doucet accepted that municipal representatives first raised the possibility of resignation. That did not, by itself, establish that Laforge had been forced out. The court assessed the whole interaction, asking whether the municipality’s conduct deprived him of a meaningful choice.

The evidence did not establish that Grand Falls required him to resign, threatened immediate termination if he refused, or promised that resignation would avert a police investigation. Its workplace investigation was still underway, another meeting was planned, and the investigation continued after his departure.

The judge also considered that Laforge did not seek to withdraw this resignation, although he had withdrawn his earlier one. His later conduct was supporting circumstantial evidence, not a rule that failing to retract a resignation cures coercion.

No prior breach establishing constructive dismissal

The court separately considered whether Grand Falls had already constructively dismissed Laforge before he resigned. That required an objective assessment of whether it fundamentally breached the employment contract or, through its cumulative conduct, showed that it no longer intended to honour the relationship.

Doucet found neither on this record. Laforge was still receiving salary and benefits, the investigation had not concluded and no final disciplinary determination had been communicated. The finding rested on the particular investigation and leave arrangements, rather than treating all paid suspensions as immune from a constructive-dismissal claim.

More work did not establish the policy entitlement

Laforge’s separate compensation claim concerned a colleague’s vacancy between August 2020 and June 2021. A municipal policy provided a 10-to-20-per-cent salary increase for qualifying additional tasks assumed during a co-worker’s prolonged absence, depending on the work’s amount and complexity.

The judge accepted that Laforge’s workload increased. But he had not adequately identified the particular additional duties, how they differed from his ordinary responsibilities, or their amount and complexity. His evidence of longer hours and preparing reports did not supply the factual foundation the policy required.

The dismissal therefore was not a finding that he did no extra work. It was a failure to prove the compensable work and corresponding entitlement under that policy.

Doucet also discussed a hypothetical notice period and mitigation reduction, expressly stating that those observations were only an alternative analysis and did not form the basis of the decision. No notice damages were awarded; Grand Falls prevailed on both substantive claims.