<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/wordpress-mu-1.2.5" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Termination</title>
	<link>http://hrheroblogs.com/northernexposure/2007/11/08/severance/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:32:24 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=wordpress-mu-1.2.5</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Northern Exposure &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Supreme Court reverses largest wrongful dismissal punitive damages award in Canadian history</title>
		<link>http://hrheroblogs.com/northernexposure/2007/11/08/severance/#comment-1566</link>
		<dc:creator>Northern Exposure &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Supreme Court reverses largest wrongful dismissal punitive damages award in Canadian history</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:11:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hrheroblogs.com/northernexposure/2007/11/08/severance/#comment-1566</guid>
		<description>[...] reasonable notice. In addition, he awarded a nine-month extension of the notice period (known as a Wallace extension) based on his finding of bad faith actions by Honda in the manner of [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] reasonable notice. In addition, he awarded a nine-month extension of the notice period (known as a Wallace extension) based on his finding of bad faith actions by Honda in the manner of [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Northern Exposure &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Termination</title>
		<link>http://hrheroblogs.com/northernexposure/2007/11/08/severance/#comment-1055</link>
		<dc:creator>Northern Exposure &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Termination</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2008 12:31:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hrheroblogs.com/northernexposure/2007/11/08/severance/#comment-1055</guid>
		<description>[...] that damages awarded because the employer acted in bad faith in the manner of dismissal (called “Wallace damages”) are never subject to mitigation. This is also new. This part of the ruling “ups the ante” for [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] that damages awarded because the employer acted in bad faith in the manner of dismissal (called “Wallace damages”) are never subject to mitigation. This is also new. This part of the ruling “ups the ante” for [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
