When the minimum standards have not been met, courts will likely impose the Common Law maximum.

When the minimum standards have not been met, courts will likely impose the Common Law maximum.

• A. The statutory minimum
• B. The corporate policy
• C. Common Law maximum
• D. The collective agreement

Answer: (C)

When minimum standards aren’t met, the aim is to put the injured party in as strong a position as the law allows and to deter future breaches. Statutory minimums establish a floor, not a cap. If those minimum protections are violated, the court can turn to the common-law framework to award remedies up to the common-law maximum. In practical terms, this means damages that reflect the higher, long‑standing norms of the common law, potentially reaching the maximum allowed under common law, rather than being limited to the statutory minimum. Internal policies or a collective agreement may set higher standards or different terms, but they don’t provide the default judicial remedy when statutory protections fall short; the common-law maximum governs the remedy here.

When minimum standards aren’t met, the aim is to put the injured party in as strong a position as the law allows and to deter future breaches. Statutory minimums establish a floor, not a cap. If those minimum protections are violated, the court can turn to the common-law framework to award remedies up to the common-law maximum. In practical terms, this means damages that reflect the higher, long‑standing norms of the common law, potentially reaching the maximum allowed under common law, rather than being limited to the statutory minimum. Internal policies or a collective agreement may set higher standards or different terms, but they don’t provide the default judicial remedy when statutory protections fall short; the common-law maximum governs the remedy here.