alleged, and that instead, she was recruited for the duration
contained in her contract. Counsel maintained that the Claimant
is bound by her signature appended on the contract since at any
material time; she was not coerced or put under any form of
duress at the time of signing the contract.
To fortify his argument, Counsel referred the Court to the
doctrine of Estoppel as set out by Court of Appeal case decided in
1988: Litwin Construction (1973) Ltd, 29 BCLR (2(d)) where the
crucial question in an employment contract would be:
“Has the Party against whom the estopell is Claimant
affirmed the contract unequivocally by his words or
conduct in circumstances making it unfair or unjust
for him now to resile from that contract?”
Counsel for the Respondent argued that the Claimant had read
and agreed with the terms and conditions of her contract and
besides enjoyed it. It is the thrust of Counsel’s argument that she
cannot now, after the end of her tenure, come and challenge the
employment contract.
IX.
DECISION ON THE ISSUE NO.3
From the outset, we wish to point out that it is not in dispute
that Regulation 22(1)(c) provides for a renewal of contract for all
professional staff by the Council.
It was also an agreed fact, during the Scheduling Conference,
that
the
Applicant’s
appointment
fell
in
the
category
of
Professional Staff and that she was recruited to replace Mr.
CLAIM NO.1 OF 2012
Page 24