Bank ordered to pay employee $15,000 for mental suffering

Court says Bank of Montreal’s actions were “flagrant and outrageous” in its treatment of overworked employee

A court has ordered the Bank of Montreal to pay a former employee $15,000 for mental suffering on top of her severance pay.

The employee, Susanne Zorn-Smith, suffered a breakdown after working days, nights and weekends to meet the demands at an understaffed branch in Smiths Falls, Ont.

In her judgment, Ontario Superior Court Justice Catherine Aitken said the bank was aware of Zorn-Smith’s history of long hours and missed lunches.

“It knew Ms. Susanne Zorn-Smith was an employee of long standing who was totally committed to the bank. It knew she was the kind of person who always tried to give the best possible service to clients, to help her colleagues and put the bank’s interests first. It took advantage of those qualities in total disregard to the toll its demands were taking on her health and the health of her family. This callous disregard for the health of an employee was flagrant and outrageous,” wrote Justice Aitken in her Dec. 2 decision.

“That (she) would suffer a further burnout was predictable — the only question was when it would come. It was foreseeable that such a burnout would cause her mental suffering.”

Zorn-Smith, 38, is the daughter of a former bank vice-president. She started working for the Bank of Montreal part-time when she was 15

Over the years, she worked her way up through the ranks working at numerous branches around Ontario. When she had the breakdown, she was working as the financial services manager at the branch in Smiths Falls, earning about $43,000 per year.

All of her performance appraisals up to the time of her termination described her as a hard-working, loyal, conscientious employee with initiative who was well-liked by staff and customers alike.

Her overall level of performance was consistently rated as competent, with various factors such as attitude, initiative, quantity of work, attendance, punctuality and customer relations often being rated as above average or high.

The branch in Smiths Falls was busy and understaffed. She often worked from 8:30 a.m. to between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. She would return once her children were in bed, working again from 9 p.m. to midnight or 1 a.m., two or three nights a week. She even went in occasionally on Sunday night to get ready for the next week.

She was also being encouraged by the bank to complete — on her own time — several courses to maintain her skills, knowledge and qualifications. Because of the amount of work and stress, her marriage began to suffer. She took a disability leave in 2000 and returned to a lesser position, but was soon given more work and more responsibility.

On Feb. 20, 2001, Zorn-Smith essentially stopped functioning because of excess responsibility and excess overtime. Zorn-Smith told a company nurse she had not slept more than two to three hours a night for several months. She said she suffered from a loss of appetite, memory loss, lack of concentration, mood swings, exhaustion, a loss of self-worth and self-esteem and that she was angry and impatient.

She was fired from her position on June 28 after the company doctor said she was fit to return to part-time work and she refused. She was given no severance.

Justice Aitken ordered the Bank of Montreal to pay her 16-months’ severance on top of the damages for mental suffering, minus any earnings of Zorn-Smith over the 16-month period.

The court also said Zorn-Smith is entitled to any vacation pay relative to this period and to compensation for the loss of value to her pension during the notice period.

Zorn-Smith was also seeking punitive damages. Justice Aitken refused to award punitive damages in this case, despite her rebuke of the bank’s behaviour.

“Such damages are awarded only in exceptional cases for ‘malicious, oppressive and high-handed’ misconduct that ‘offends the court’s sense of decency,’” said Justice Aitken. “An award of punitive damages must serve a rational purpose, such as adequately addressing the objectives of retribution, deterrence or denunciation where compensatory damages do no adequately do so.”

For more information see:

Zorn-Smith v. Bank of Montreal, 2003 CarswellOnt 4845 (Ont. S.C.J.)

To read the full story, login below.

Not a subscriber?

Start your subscription today!