I Asked ChatGPT to Summarize the Court’s Decision in Bardal v Globe and Mail. This is What Happened.

Unless one has been living under a rock, it would be hard to have missed the discussion concerning ChatGPT.

But until recently, I had not experimented with it. Two days ago, I finally gave in and gave it a shot. After playing around with it, I decided to see what would happen if I tried to use it to summarize a court decision for this blog.

I elected to start with a well-known and short decision: The 1960 decision of the Ontario High Court in Bardal v. Globe, 1960 CanLII 294 (ON SC).

Here is what happened.

ChatGPT’s Summary of the Facts

I started by asking ChatGPT 3.5 to write the HTML code for the link to the Bardal decision on CanLII and without any further prompts for me it did so. Helpful and impressive. Although ChatGPT did not provide me with a proper citation, nor did it put the style of cause in italics. Still.

Then I tried to solicit the facts of the case.

I started by asking ChatGPT this question: Are you familiar with the case of Bardal v Globe and Mail?

Answer: Yes, Bardal v. Globe and Mail is a significant legal case in Canadian employment law. The case established the principle of "reasonable notice" or "reasonable notice period" in employment termination without cause.

In 1960, the Ontario High Court of Justice ruled on the case Bardal v. Globe and Mail Ltd., where an employee named Mr. Bardal was dismissed from his job without any prior notice or reasonable compensation. The court's decision set a precedent that employers must provide employees with reasonable notice or payment in lieu of notice when terminating their employment without cause.

The ruling established that employees have the right to a reasonable notice period before termination, based on factors such as length of service, age, position, and opportunities for re-employment. This period aims to provide the employee with time to secure new employment or compensation while transitioning out of their current job.

Bardal v. Globe and Mail emphasized the need for employers to provide a reasonable notice period or compensation in lieu of notice to dismissed employees, which has since become a fundamental principle in Canadian employment law. It has influenced subsequent legal decisions and the development of employment standards across Canada, emphasizing the importance of fairness and equity in employment terminations.

In all honesty, this was more than I was expecting. It’s also a pretty decent summary of the case and if all you wanted to know was why the case was important, you could probably stop here. Of course, you would still need to actually read the court’s decision to confirm that ChatGPT was not hallucinating.

I then asked ChatGPT for more detail. I asked it this question: What were the facts of that case?

Answer: The case of Bardal v. Globe and Mail Ltd. involved an employee named Mr. Bardal who worked as a compositor for the Globe and Mail newspaper. In this case, Mr. Bardal was dismissed from his employment without any prior notice or payment in lieu of notice.

The key facts of the case revolved around the sudden termination of Mr. Bardal's employment without any reasonable notice or compensation. Mr. Bardal argued that the termination was unjust and sought damages for the lack of notice or compensation provided by his employer.

The court ruled in favor of Mr. Bardal, establishing the principle that employers must give reasonable notice or payment in lieu of notice when terminating an employee without cause. The court emphasized the importance of providing employees with adequate notice to find alternative employment or receive compensation during the transition period after losing their job.

While the case didn't delve deeply into the specifics of Mr. Bardal's performance or the circumstances surrounding his termination, its significance lies in establishing the precedent of reasonable notice periods for employees in Canada who are terminated without cause.

Question: How old was Mr. Bardal when his employment was terminated?

Answer: The specific age of Mr. Bardal at the time of his employment termination in the case of Bardal v. Globe and Mail Ltd. is not explicitly mentioned in the available information about the case.

Question: How long had Mr Bardal worked for the Globe and Mail when his employment was terminated?

Answer: The specific length of time that Mr. Bardal had worked for the Globe and Mail at the time of his termination isn't explicitly mentioned in the available information about the case of Bardal v. Globe and Mail Ltd.

At this point I gave up trying. It wasn’t going to provide me with the key details I wanted or needed.

ChatGPT’s Summary of the Decision

Question: What are the seminal passages of the court’s reasons for decision in Bardal v Globe and Mail?

Answer: In the case of Bardal v. Globe and Mail Ltd., the court's decision established the principle of "reasonable notice" or "reasonable notice period" in employment termination without cause. While the specific wording of the court's reasons for the decision may vary across different sources, the decision is often summarized and referenced for the following key principles:

1. Reasonable Notice Principle: The court emphasized that when an employer terminates an employee without cause, the employer is obligated to provide reasonable notice or payment in lieu of notice. This reasonable notice period should be based on various factors including the employee's length of service, age, position, and opportunities for re-employment.

2. Factors Determining Reasonable Notice: The court highlighted that the reasonable notice period should be determined by considering individual circumstances such as the employee's position, responsibilities, length of service, age, and the availability of similar employment opportunities.

While there might not be specific passages verbatim available from the court's reasons for decision in Bardal v. Globe and Mail widely accessible, these key principles regarding reasonable notice have been crucial and have shaped employment law in Canada. They emphasize the importance of providing adequate notice or compensation to employees when they are terminated without cause, considering various factors to determine what constitutes a reasonable notice period.

Legal databases or libraries might have access to the complete and official court documents that contain the detailed reasoning behind the judgment in Bardal v. Globe and Mail, offering a more comprehensive understanding of the court's decision.

Chat GPT’s Takeaways for Employers

I then asked ChatGPT this question: What are the takeaways from this decision for employers?

Again its answer was more detailed than I was expecting. Here is what it told me, after I asked it to provide its answer in HTML script:

1. Obligation of Reasonable Notice or Compensation:

   Employers must provide reasonable notice or compensation in lieu of notice when terminating an employee without cause.

2. Consideration of Individual Circumstances:

   Employers should consider factors such as the employee's length of service, position, age, and re-employment opportunities when determining the appropriate notice period.

3. Fairness and Equity in Terminations:

   Employers should aim for fairness in terminations by providing reasonable notice for a suitable transition period.

4. Risk Mitigation for Legal Challenges:

   Failure to provide reasonable notice may result in legal challenges and potential liabilities for the employer.

5. Documentation and Clear Policies:

   Employers should maintain transparent policies and documentation regarding employment terms, evaluations, and termination procedures.

6. Consultation with Legal Advisors:

   Seeking legal advice helps ensure compliance with employment laws and determining appropriate notice periods.

I mean… yeah. That’s… right. And thanks for the coding.

ChatGPT’s Takeaways for Employees

Okay, but what are the takeaways from this decision for employers?

1. Understanding of Employment Rights:

   Employees should be aware of their rights regarding termination without cause, including the principle of reasonable notice or compensation.

2. Negotiation and Advocacy:

   Employees can negotiate for a fair notice period or compensation based on factors such as length of service, position, and age.

3. Seeking Legal Counsel:

   Seeking legal advice can help employees understand their legal options and rights during termination without cause.

4. Documentation and Employment Records:

   Keeping records of employment contracts, evaluations, and communications regarding employment terms can be beneficial.

5. Understanding Fairness in Terminations:

   Being aware of the concept of fairness in terminations and the employer's obligation to provide reasonable notice.

6. Reviewing Employment Policies:

   Understanding the employer's termination policies and labor laws empowers employees to assert their rights.

Again this is pretty solid. And, given that I had been conversing with ChatGPT it provided me with the HTML script without me even prompting it to do so.

Commentary by a Human Being

I’ll start by observing that ChatGPT was helpful in a lot of respects. Placing text into script, including links that I did not have to look up was super helpful and time saving. And while I know that programs already exist to convert text into HTML, the ability to go one step further and locate the URL was pretty neat.

With respect to ChatGPT’s summary of the importance of the decision, I mean, yes, it gets it right. Although given the incredible amount of existing commentary on that now 63-year-old decision, it would have had a lot of content from which to work.

Its commentary on the takeaways from the decision was probably most impressive. While the commentary, bordering on advice, is basic, it is also accurate and appropriate. Were a student to provide me with this summary as part of an employment law class in law school, I would probably give it a B+.

Where ChatGPT was wanting is with respect to the purposes to which I, as a lawyer and a litigator, would put it: It could not give me the facts of the case that I needed, even though it kept telling me what the relevant facts would be. It could not give me the seminal passage of “There can be no catalogue laid down as to what is reasonable notice in particular classes of cases. The reasonableness of the notice must be decided with reference to each particular case, having regard to the character of the employment, the length of service of the servant, the age of the servant and the availability of similar employment, having regard to the experience, training and qualifications of the servant.”

On the whole, my take is that ChatGPT 3.5 is another valuable tool. It’s not a panacea, it’s not yet ending my profession. But it’s going to change it.

Who Is Sean P Bawden

I asked ChatGPT who Sean P Bawden is. Here is what it told me:

As of my last knowledge update in January 2023, Sean P. Bawden is a Canadian lawyer known for his expertise in employment law and his active presence in legal discussions and publications related to employment and labor laws in Canada. He has been involved in providing legal insights and commentary on various employment law matters through his writings, blog posts, speaking engagements, and contributions to legal publications.

Sean P. Bawden has also been active on social media platforms, sharing his perspectives on legal issues, particularly those concerning employment rights and workplace-related matters. He has often contributed to discussions regarding the interpretation of employment laws, case analyses, and broader discussions on legal developments in Canada.

Ahh shucks… but is he handsome?

As an AI language model, I don't have access to personal opinions or subjective judgments regarding physical appearances. Beauty or handsomeness is a subjective and personal perception that varies from individual to individual. As such, I don't possess the capability to determine or comment on someone's physical appearance or attractiveness. Sean P. Bawden's physical appearance is unrelated to his professional expertise in employment law and legal contributions.

Better than “no” I guess.

Contact Me

I can be reached by email at sbawden@kellysantini.com or by phone at 613.238.6321 x233.

Subscribe to Labour Pains

* indicates required

Email Address *

--

As always, everyone’s situation is different. The above is not intended to be legal advice for any particular situation. It is always prudent to seek professional legal advice before making any decisions with respect to your own case.