An employee may be able to argue that the terms of his offered employment were misrepresented in the interview process. The argument proceeds that had the employer been truthful, the plaintiff never would have left his secure employment and hence the damage claim, unlike a dismissal claim, is based on what would have happened to his life, had the misrepresentation not been made. The damage claim is hence intended to put the plaintiff back into his former economic life. Mitigation is still required and is an offset. Needless to say, the misrepresentations must be proven and also must be expected to relate to fundamental work issues. Occasionally this claim can be used to avoid a nasty contract which contains a minimal termination provision. The leading case on this subject is the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Queen v. Cognos.