The board of directors for the Downtown and Soccer/Field House Facilities Inc. (DFFH) fired former general manager Graham Edge because he was unsuitable for the position, a court document says.
Lawyers with McKercher LLP filed a statement of defence at Moose Jaw Court of Queen’s Bench on Aug. 13 on behalf of defendants Ted Schaeffer, Brian Swanson, Scott McMann and Crystal Froese, after Edge named them in a lawsuit alleging his wrongful termination.
In the statement of defence, the document explained the DFFH board hired Edge on Jan. 15, 2018 as general manager, a position in which he was responsible for the overall management, promotion and operation of the DFFH buildings Yara Centre and Mosaic Place. Edge’s contract stated he was subject to a six-month probation period.
On May 24, 2018, the DFFH board of directors unanimously passed a motion to fire Edge, with the termination to take effect on May 25, 2018. Schaeffer did not participate in the board’s motion to fire Edge.
“The reason for the termination was the Plaintiff’s incompatibility with staff and relationships with third-party groups, which rendered him unsuitable for the position,” the court document explained.
After terminating Edge, the DFFH paid all wages owing to him according to The Saskatchewan Employment Act and continued to pay his salary until June 15, 2018.
The statement of defence document contains several clauses that refute the allegations Edge made in his statement of claim.
The four defendants deny:
- That Edge’s firing was related to, or caused by, his investigation or reporting of Myles Fister, director of building operations, to the DFFH board of directors
- That Edge’s termination was retaliation as alleged in the statement of claim
- That they minimized, undermined or suppressed Edge’s investigation into Fister
- That they are liable for breaching section 2 (42) of The Saskatchewan Employment Act and deny taking any discriminatory action against Edge
- That they are liable for wrongful termination, and instead, they paid Edge all the wages owing to him upon his firing
- That they breached any duty of care owed by them under The Non-Profit Corporations Act
- That they were negligent or breached any duty of care owed by them
- That they were negligent or breached any duty of care owed by them as alleged in another paragraph of the statement of claim
- The nature and extent of the damages and loss claimed by Edge, and instead, put Edge to show strict proof thereof. Further, and/or in the alternative, the defendants say Edge failed to mitigate his damages properly
- That they caused irreparable harm to Edge’s reputation, as alleged in the claim
- That “any of their actions or omissions were suppressive, harsh, vindictive, or malicious, and deny that punitive or aggravated damages are recoverable” as alleged in several paragraphs of the claim
The defendants are asking a Queen’s Bench judge to dismissed Edge’s claim with costs.
Neither the statement of claim nor the statement of defence has been proven in court.
