Worker's compensation averaged $13 million over the last three years
Scotiabank is facing a $100 million wrongful dismissal lawsuit from a former star trader.
David Berry, vice-president and director of Scotia Capital, was dismissed in June 2005. In a 72-page statement of claim he filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Berry alleged the bank forced him out because members of the board of directors and senior management resented his status as one of the bank’s highest paid employees and they were unsuccessful in forcing a reduction in his compensation.
Berry started working for the bank in 1995. He said his duties and compensation increased significantly over the years, reflecting his success as a trader. His compensation arrangement, called “direct drive,” entitled him to 20 per cent of the bank’s net earnings in the preferred shares business. Over the last three years of his employment, he earned an average of $13 million annually, he said.
In a press release, Berry charged that his compensation, which made him among the bank’s highest paid employees, was a source of “personal jealousies and a sore spot for many in the bank, who resented what (he) was earning and who were prepared to go to great lengths to reduce his compensation.”
Berry said he refused to sign a contract in 2005 that included a retroactive 33 per cent cut, shared ownership of any losses, the waiver of his right to assert constructive or wrongful dismissal and defining a regulatory breach as basis for dismissal with cause.
As a result, the bank sought ways to terminate his employment for cause, he said.
In the statement of claim, Berry said Scotiabank relied on the manner in which certain trades he conducted were recorded to fire him. But he contends that everything he did was approved by the bank and was “identical to the manner in which similar trades had been conducted and recorded by it throughout the entire time that Berry was employed by Scotia Capital.”
Berry is the subject of a regulatory investigation as a result of the activities.
As outlined in the statement of claim, Berry is suing, among other things, for:
•$9 million for earned and allocated units of the Scotia Capital deferred payment plan;
•$8.5 million in earned but unpaid commission;
•$3 million in damages for money he would have earned but for his termination in relation to a transaction;
•$20 million for constructive or wrongful dismissal;
•$5 million for loss of reputation and malice;
•$50 million for loss of competitive advantage;
•$250,000 for a unpaid bonus;
•$30,000 in lost benefits;
•$20,000 for costs incurred in mitigating his damages;
•$2 million in punitive damages; and
•a six-month Wallace extension of the reasonable notice period for the bad-faith manner in which he was dismissed.
None of the allegations have been proven in court. Canadian Employment Law Today will continue to follow the case as it develops.
David Berry, vice-president and director of Scotia Capital, was dismissed in June 2005. In a 72-page statement of claim he filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Berry alleged the bank forced him out because members of the board of directors and senior management resented his status as one of the bank’s highest paid employees and they were unsuccessful in forcing a reduction in his compensation.
Berry started working for the bank in 1995. He said his duties and compensation increased significantly over the years, reflecting his success as a trader. His compensation arrangement, called “direct drive,” entitled him to 20 per cent of the bank’s net earnings in the preferred shares business. Over the last three years of his employment, he earned an average of $13 million annually, he said.
In a press release, Berry charged that his compensation, which made him among the bank’s highest paid employees, was a source of “personal jealousies and a sore spot for many in the bank, who resented what (he) was earning and who were prepared to go to great lengths to reduce his compensation.”
Berry said he refused to sign a contract in 2005 that included a retroactive 33 per cent cut, shared ownership of any losses, the waiver of his right to assert constructive or wrongful dismissal and defining a regulatory breach as basis for dismissal with cause.
As a result, the bank sought ways to terminate his employment for cause, he said.
In the statement of claim, Berry said Scotiabank relied on the manner in which certain trades he conducted were recorded to fire him. But he contends that everything he did was approved by the bank and was “identical to the manner in which similar trades had been conducted and recorded by it throughout the entire time that Berry was employed by Scotia Capital.”
Berry is the subject of a regulatory investigation as a result of the activities.
As outlined in the statement of claim, Berry is suing, among other things, for:
•$9 million for earned and allocated units of the Scotia Capital deferred payment plan;
•$8.5 million in earned but unpaid commission;
•$3 million in damages for money he would have earned but for his termination in relation to a transaction;
•$20 million for constructive or wrongful dismissal;
•$5 million for loss of reputation and malice;
•$50 million for loss of competitive advantage;
•$250,000 for a unpaid bonus;
•$30,000 in lost benefits;
•$20,000 for costs incurred in mitigating his damages;
•$2 million in punitive damages; and
•a six-month Wallace extension of the reasonable notice period for the bad-faith manner in which he was dismissed.
None of the allegations have been proven in court. Canadian Employment Law Today will continue to follow the case as it develops.
