Auld v. Emera Inc.

Auld v. Emera Inc.

Because the RSU Plan expressly entitles an employee who remains employed to the end of the three-year vesting period to a payout, the claimant satisfied the Plan conditions on January 1, 2008; that entitlement was contractual (or enforceable as a collateral contract) and the MRCC could not reasonably withhold payment after vesting; promissory estoppel also barred the defendants from denying payment.

Citation
2008 NSSM 37
Parties
Claimant: Darlene Auld; Defendant: Emera Incorporated; Defendant: Nova Scotia Power Incorporated
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Employment/contract Dispute / Adjudicator Decision (final)
Outcome
Claimant's claim allowed; RSU rights held vested and contractual; award granted.
Legal Topics
Restricted Share Unit (rsu) Plans, Vesting, Breach of Contract, Promissory Estoppel, Discretionary Employee Benefits
Source Language
English
Employment Law Contract Law Equity Restricted Share Unit (rsu) Plans Vesting Breach of Contract Promissory Estoppel Discretionary Employee Benefits

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darlene Auld

Claimant

Emera Incorporated

Defendant

Nova Scotia Power Incorporated

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Employment/contract Dispute / Adjudicator Decision (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant was entitled to RSU payout as of the vesting date (January 1, 2008)
  2. 2 Whether the RSU Plan constituted part of the employment contract or a collateral contractual promise
  3. 3 Whether the MRCC had a valid discretion to withhold payment after vesting and whether such discretion could be exercised against an employee who satisfied vesting conditions

Ratio Decidendi

Because the RSU Plan expressly entitles an employee who remains employed to the end of the three-year vesting period to a payout, the claimant satisfied the Plan conditions on January 1, 2008; that entitlement was contractual (or enforceable as a collateral contract) and the MRCC could not reasonably withhold payment after vesting; promissory estoppel also barred the defendants from denying payment.

Court Disposition

Claimant's claim allowed; RSU rights held vested and contractual; award granted.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay claimant $13,735.76 plus costs