The BC Supreme Court has allowed a bond trader’s appeal of his wrongful dismissal suit against Goldman Sachs Canada, upping his damages award.

In the case between Bruce Gillies and Goldman, the trial court first awarded Gillies damages based on 12 months notice, or about $425,000, less any money he earned during that period. The decision put the notice period to three days before the initial public offering of Goldman Sachs shares, and the trial judge declined to compensate Gillies for his lost opportunity to participate in the IPO.

The appeals court has allowed his appeal and increased the damage award based on 13 months notice, including participation in the IPO. The court said that the trial judge’s reasons for blocking his participation in the IPO was not clear. “Was it only for the reason that Gillies could not be considered to be actively employed through to the date of the IPO, or was it because the trial judge considered the formula restricted stock units to be discretionary non-contractual awards?”

“In my view, it is an inevitable conclusion that everyone employed by Goldman Sachs on both March 30 and May 3, 1999 was entitled to formula restricted stock units under the terms of the IPO. I have no hesitation in concluding that Mr. Gillies was entitled to participate in the formula restricted stock unit portion of the IPO in the same way as other employees, if the period of reasonable notice extended past May 3, 1999,” said the judge.

The court also concluded that 12 months notice was at the low end because bond trading is a “young person’s” business, and Gillies was relatively old when he was terminated. Also, Goldman had moved him from Toronto to Vancouver which had a limited market for people of his skills, it dissuaded him from joining another firm in Vancouver thus further limiting his employability, and that Goldman recruited him from a long-term employer with representations of secure employment.

The court also ruled that in calculating his bonus, Gillies should be compared with his Canadian counterparts. The firm wanted his bonus calculation compared with its New York-based traders. It also referred issues of the application of the contractual provisions limiting the obligation to deliver shares, and the remedy for the lost participation, to the trial court for determination.