When Work Really Becomes A Prison

It’s not all that often that something really different happens in the world of wrongful dismissal.  But, just when an employment lawyer thinks he’s seen everything, another weird situation pops up.

An employee claiming false imprisonment against his former employer would certainly fall within that category.  It goes to show just how inventive employers can be in finding new ways to create liability for themselves.

Jatinder Kalsi was a long-time employee of Greater Vancouver Associate Stores Ltd., operators of the Canadian Tire store in New Westminster, B.C.  He had started at the age of on the store’s clean-up staff then progressed to an automotive apprenticeship and, 16 years later, was a journeyman mechanic.

Kalsi was regarded as the “top man” in the Canadian Tire store’s service department.  He was considered a good employee, an above average technician, and had never been a problem for his employer.

In May, 2005, Kalsi was on a medical leave.  During his leave, he attended at his employer’s store and parked his Honda Accord in one of the service bays.  He was there to obtain a replacement headlight bulb for his vehicle.

He asked for the assistance of two mechanics who were on site, then proceeded into the retail area of the store and obtained a light bulb.  Upon returning to the service area with the light bulb – without having paid for it - he was apprehended by the store’s security officer (who had seen Kalsi take the bulb out of the store to the service area).

Kalsi was questioned briefly, then was accused of theft and was asked to follow the security officer upstairs to the store lunch room.  Kalsi said he was scared and nervous and felt compelled to accompany the security officer.

In the lunch room, Kalsi was asked further questions and was asked to write out a statement of what had occurred.  The security officer called a senior store advisor, who took over an hour to arrive on the scene.

Finally, after further questioning, Kalsi was told he was suspended and that the matter would be dealt with later.  In total, Kalsi was in the store’s lunch room for as much as two-and-one-half hours.

It wasn’t until almost 4 months later, in September of 2005, that Kalsi’s employer got around to telling him that he was fired summarily for just cause reasons.  In the meantime, police had declined to proceed with the matter of the alleged theft.

Kalsi sued for wrongful dismissal and his claim against Greater Vancouver Associate Stores Ltd. was upheld.  The B.C. Supreme Court assessed damages for wrongful dismissal at 16 months’ pay in lieu of notice.

In addition to the claim of wrongful dismissal, Kalsi alleged he had been falsely imprisoned.  At trial, his counsel emphasized his detention by the employer’s security officer for over two hours in the store lunch room was an unlawful restraint. It was submitted that, since there had not been a commission of theft, the employer did not have lawful authority to detain Kalsi. 

The employer’s counsel responded that Kalsi had created the circumstances leading to his detention.  He had only been asked to follow the security officer to the lunch room and hadn’t been prevented from leaving.

The Court reviewed the sections of the Criminal Code permitting a so-called “citizen’s arrest” (being an arrest by a person who is not a police officer).  It noted that, in circumstances involving a criminal offence in relation to property, the Code requires anyone making such an arrest to “forthwith deliver that person to a police officer”.

The Court found that the security officer had reasonable grounds to detain Kalsi.  What the employer didn’t do, however, was to “forthwith deliver Mr. Kalsi to a police officer”.  It mentioned that “it is not the place of private citizens to unduly lengthen another citizen’s deprivation of liberty while they carry out investigations and fill out paperwork”.

The Court found that the lengthy detention of Kalsi by his employer and the failure to notify the police “transformed an initially lawful detention into an unlawful imprisonment”.  The Court awarded nominal additional damages for false imprisonment in the amount of $6,500.

Without expressly saying so, the Court seemed to suggest that the employer should have more quickly sent Kalsi home.  Perhaps it would have made sense, in the circumstances, to have done so after his initial statement was taken. 

The employer could then have carried out its investigation at its leisure – speaking to other employees, reviewing surveillance video, obtaining written statements, etc. – and made its decision regarding Kalsi’s fate.  Not having done so, this company can lay claim to the dubious distinction of being one of the few Canadian employers to have unlawfully imprisoned one of its employees.