Former Vitalité CEO Rino Volpé wins wrongful dismissal lawsuit against province

Health Minister Victor Boudreau fired the CEO of the Vitalité Health network without cause in 2014 and must pay severance, a Court of Queen's Bench judge has ruled.

Justice Larry Landry has ordered the province to pay Rino Volpé $525,000 plus interest and legal costs.

Landry made the decision in a summary judgment, ruling the evidence was clear and the case didn't need to go to trial.

Volpé became CEO of Vitalité in February 2013 when the Progressive Conservatives were in government. He signed a four-year contract.

But in November 2014, just six weeks after the PCs lost the provincial election, Liberal Health Minister Victor Boudreau fired him, accusing him of refusing to co-operate with stakeholders and the government.

Affidavits from officials including Marilyn Quinn, president of the New Brunswick Nurses Union, and Gordon Gilman, then the CEO of FacilicorpsNB, said Volpé was difficult to deal with.

'Not a Yes man'

Landry acknowledged in his ruling that Volpé was "not a Yes man" and had refused to meet with the deputy minister of health, Tom Maston.

"Were these complaints sufficient to justify a firing without cause of Rino Volpé?" the judge asked. "The answer is no."

Volpé's lawyers filed affidavits from the former board chair of Vitalité and the chief of medical staff saying he was a strong leader for the health authority, and there were no indications anyone was concerned until after the election.

"It was a change of government after an election that began the series of events that led to the firing of Rino Volpé," he said.

"Six weeks before the firing of Rino Volpé, the undisputed evidence convinces me that the employer was satisfied with Rino Volpé's work."

No consultation before firing

Former board chair Paul Couturier signed an affidavit saying Boudreau did not consult the Vitalité board before he fired the CEO.

"Mr. Volpe's immediate superiors, the board members of Vitalité, had no complaints about him and were surprised and disappointed by his firing," the judge wrote in his ruling.

Volpé's lawyer, Ronald Caza, said he called his client as soon as he had the decision to tell him the news.

"He and his family are very emotional," he said. "They're very, very relieved that they can now turn the page on this issue. … They're very, very happy that this matter has been cleared up and the allegations that were made have been proven false."

No punitive damages

Volpé's contract said he could be fired without cause but would be entitled to 18 months of severance or the balance of his contract salary, whichever was less.

By arguing he was being fired for cause, Boudreau claimed the province wasn't obligated to pay him anything.

The $525,000 award represents 18 months' pay. There is also $80,000 in interest on that amount and $22,525 in legal costs.

Landry did not order the province to pay punitive damages, writing that the government's behaviour was not "so reprehensible to justify awarding such damages."

Lack of co-operation noted

Boudreau argued that Volpé had withdrawn the health authority from several provincial committees. Volpé said in his affidavit that the committees were holdovers from when the province had eight health authorities and were a waste of time and money.

He had asked the minister to review the need for so many committees, and the Vitalité board supported him on that, his lawyers argued.

The judge also pointed out that while Volpé refused to deal with Maston, the deputy minister, and insisted on meeting directly with the minister, he wasn't able to get a meeting with Boudreau between the 2014 election and when he was fired.

His differences with some officials "seem generally to result from differing opinions but certainly weren't sufficient cause to end his employment," the ruling says.

In a written statement, Health Minister Victor Boudreau pointed out the decision not to award punitive damages means the cost was "significantly less" than what Volpé asked for.

He said the province had been "confident" in its legal position but added, "We respect the decision of the Court, and will not provide further comment as we take the necessary time to review the decision in greater detail."