The news of Bill Barratt’s lawsuit against the municipality for wrongful dismissal came as a “surprise” for at least one of the Whistler council members who voted in June to accept the former Chief Administrative Officer’s (CAO) retirement resignation.

Barratt, who worked at the Resort Municipality of Whistler for nearly 30 years, including the last five as CAO, filed a civil claim against the municipality last Thursday (Sept. 22), suing for an unspecified amount of “general damages” for wrongful dismissal and breach of employment contract.

When reached by phone on Tuesday (Sept. 27), councillor Ted Milner was reluctant to comment on the legal matter and said he hadn’t yet seen the details of Barratt’s claim.

“This was unexpected,” Milner said. “It’s certainly a surprise.”

Milner was one of four council members who, according to Barratt’s claim, voted on June 21 to “terminate his employment in advance of his chosen resignation date.” Councillors Ralph Forsyth, Grant Lamont and Eckhard Zeidler are also named in the suit as having voted to end Barratt’s employment with the municipality.

Forsyth and Zeidler declined to comment on the lawsuit, and a municipal spokesperson said the RMOW does not comment on legal or human resources matters.

Barratt, who continues to live in Whistler, announced in January that he was planning to retire and named June 30 as his final day at municipal hall. However, he offered to stay on past June 30 if a replacement CAO had not been hired by that time.

After the 4-3 council vote in June, it became public in July that Barratt had served his last day on July 5.

At the time, Mayor Ken Melamed told The Question that the majority of council wanted to have “some certainty” in terms of Barratt’s retirement date.

“It’s just fixing the date of retirement, and there was a majority of council that felt that was important, and there was a bit of dialogue between Bill and council before coming to the decision,” Melamed said in July.

But Barratt claims in his lawsuit that he advised council in writing after the June 21 vote that ending his employment before a new CAO was hired would break the terms of his resignation letter and employment contract. The claim outlines that Barratt’s resignation letter, dated Jan. 12, 2011, stated he would retire on June 30 or “a date after the hiring of his replacement, whichever was later.”

The municipality characterized the decision to end Barratt’s employment on July 5 as an acceptance of his retirement — but Barratt’s claim states that characterization is “incorrect.”

Barratt’s replacement, Mike Furey, started work as municipal CAO on Sept. 12.

While the lawsuit seeks “general damages,” it also outlines that under Barratt’s employment contract he was entitled to 24 months of salary and benefits should his employment be terminated without cause.

If the court were to award Barratt damages equal to two years’ pay, the lawsuit could cost the municipality more than $430,000.

In an email to The Question on Tuesday, Barratt would not confirm whether he’s seeking 24 months salary and benefits.

“It is complicated, but that is consistent with my contract,” he wrote.

Barratt’s lawsuit outlines the terms and conditions of his employment, which include a $208,000 annual salary, monthly vehicle allowance of $700 plus payment of all fuel, insurance, repair and maintenance costs, plus seven weeks' paid vacation, among other benefits.

The suit also claims that the municipality's termination of Barratt’s employment "caused damage to his reputation because it resulted in Whistler residents believing his employment was terminated for just cause."

Nancy Wilhelm-Morden, a local lawyer and former four-term municipal councillor who is also running for mayor in November’s election, declined to comment on the legal basis of Barratt’s claim. But she did say the lawsuit is “disappointing” after Barratt’s lengthy career with the municipality.

“It’s just very disappointing to see it end like this,” she said. “It just leaves a bad taste.”

Greg Diamond, a Whistler-based employment lawyer, said he can’t determine the strength of Barratt’s case based on the information in the Notice of Civil Claim.

“I’d have to see the evidence first,” Diamond said. “A notice of claim is not evidence.”

It will depend on what Barratt can prove in court, and the key documents will be his contract of employment, letter of resignation and any correspondence from the employer in response to the letter of resignation, Diamond added.

How municipal officials responded to Barratt’s resignation is important, Diamond said, because in employment law when a resignation is tendered and accepted it creates a new set of mutual obligations. It depends on what terms of resignation were agreed to, he added.

“If he tendered his resignation and they accepted it you’ve got an amended contract,” Diamond said.

Based on the details of the resignation, Barratt and his lawyer may only be seeking damages for the two months or so between Barratt’s last day and when his replacement started work, Diamond said.

Barratt’s claim of damage to his reputation is “a challenging claim to prove,” Diamond added, and Barratt’s lawyers have not included a specific request for damages in connection with the reputation claim.

“Normally… he’d be asking for additional damages for harm to reputation,” Diamond said. “He hasn’t done that here.”

The bottom line, Diamond said, is without knowing all the evidence he can’t comment on the merits of Barratt’s case.