The question may arise as to whether the plaintiff must accept an offer of new employment which requires a geographical relocation. This may arise from a straight mitigation issue or from an allegation of constructive dismissal, as a result of the employer offering an alternate position in a different location.

The Ontario Superior Court considered this issue in its 1995 decision. ¹

The plaintiff had been offered two alternative positions from potentially new employers post termination, both of which required that he geographically relocate. One offer required a move to Vancouver, British Columbia and the second to Virginia, USA.

The court noted that the case law on this subject of relocating to satisfy a mitigation obligation was then divided. ²

The court did note that the plaintiff was 54 years old, had made one significant relocation early in life from Holland to Canada, was married, had two children aged 23 and 26 who lived close by. He owned his home and serviced the mortgage. The trial judge also observed that the defendant had not offered to pay the moving costs. ³

The judge observed that the two new offers arrived in January, shortly after his termination in December. This timing was a factor in the court’s decision in the plaintiff’s favour. It was reasonable, the court determined, that he should first canvas alternate positions near his residence. Further, the distances involved were considerable and the real estate market was then depressed.

In essence, the court analyzed the suggested obligation in the context of a reasonable approach. It was not suggested that there was a principled duty. The test was hence contextual. On these facts, the court concluded that there was no obligation in this instance.

The court did refer to prior decisions which were anecdotal. These are reviewed subsequently. ⁴