Under the assumption that I could prove that I did not

Could you please explain what you mean. I think I cannot completely follow you.- When will it be considered losing the wrongful dismissal portion?
- Could you also explain what and how you are referring to the defamation part?
- Must the defamation part be claimed separately? If yes, when and where and how?
- Was the defamation part not already handled by the SHRC when compensating for the “loss of reputation”?

The failure to provide adequate notice or pay in lieu is only ONE few options to be considered as wrongful dismissal.
Please also refer to the following web site from Dutton Law:
https://duttonlaw.ca/wrongful-dismissal-examples/I my case besides the failure to provide adequate notice (on May 30, 2018) in addition my employer also failed to
- Wrongful Dismissal Example 3: Unfounded just cause allegations
- Wrongful Dismissal Example 4: Benefits not continuedRegarding “The SHRC didn't deal with defamation from what you've told me.” please refer to our conversation we had during Nov. 4 and Nov. 10. Therein you will find reference to
“1. Damages to dignity, aggravated damages, punitive damages, and damages for loss of reputation (s. 40 damages) :
$10,000”

I just checked my statement of claim, but could not find anything specific to Defamation. Could it be seen as to still be claimed under 20 (f) ?STATEMENT OF CLAIMThe Parties1. The Plaintiff, Birgit Soldan, resides in the Town of Kinistino, in the Province of Saskatchewan. At all times material hereto, the Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant.2. The Defendant, Plus Industries lnc., is a corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of Saskatchewan, with its registered office in Melfort, Saskatchewan. At all material times hereto, the Defendant was the employer of the Plaintiff.Wrongful Dismissal3. The Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant is for breach of contract of indefinite employment, for her wrongful dismissal from that employment, and for damages flowing therefrom. There was no just cause for dismissal and the Defendant failed to provide proper notice of termination.4. The Plaintiff was first employed with the Defendant on or about July 3, 2017 as a direct support worker, under an indefinite contract of part-time employment.5. On or about February 16,2A18, the Plaintiff was no longer able to work, due to disability that stemmed from a house fire at the Plaintiff's residence, and went on sick leave.6. The Plaintiff obtained a note from her doctor on or about April 20, 2018, which stated she was unable to work for medical reasons from February 16, 2018 to May 25, 2A18. At that time, the expected return date would have been May 31, 2018, as that was when her next scheduled shift would have been. This note was provided to the Defendant.7. While on sick leave, on or about June 5, 2018, the Plaintiff received a letter from the Defendant, dated May 30, 2018, which stated that she had abandoned her job, as she did not provide updated medical documentation. The Defendant did not contact or ask the Plaintiff to obtain additional medical documentation at any time.8. The Plaintiff attended her scheduled doctor's appointment on June 5,2018, where she obtained a second note that stated she could not return to work, The Plaintiff provided this note to the Defendant that same day.9. Without cause and without any notice to the Plaintiff, the Defendant terminated the Plaintiff's employment, thereby breaching the terms of the employment contract of indefinite employment.10. The Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety in or around May of 2019. The Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff one (1) weeks' pay in lieu of notice, as required by The Saskatchewan Employment Act, SS 2013, c S-15.1.11. The Plaintiff also filed a complaint with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for discrimination due to her disability in or around June of 2418, but no hearing took place.12. In the course of the Plaintiff's employment, the Plaintiff at all times properly and competently completed her employment duties and responsibilities.13. The Plaintiff states that the Defendant had no just cause to dismiss her from the Defendant's employment and has not provide any support for their allegation of job abandonment.14. The Plaintiff claims damages for wrongful dismissal and for failure to provide the Plaintiff with adequate notice of her dismissal. Such damages include, but are not limited to, salary, benefits, lost bonus, and other entitlements that the Plaintiff received from the Defendant during the course of her employment.15. The Plaintiff says that she continues to be unable to work due to her illness. Further, if the Plaintiff was able to work, the Plaintiff says that it would be difficult to find reasonably comparable alternative employment.16.The Plaintiff was earning approximately $17.55 per hour and worked approximately nineteen (19) hours per week when she worked for the Defendant.17.At the time of her termination, the Plaintiff was a ten (10) month employee and forty-two (42) years of age.Bad Faith18. The Plaintiff further says that the Defendant has conducted itself in a high handed fashion and has acted in bad faith in wrongfully dismissing the Plaintiff and in its dealings with the Plaintiff concerning the dismissal. The bad faith conduct of the Defendant includes, but is not limited to, the following:a. the Defendant filed numerous Records of Employments with Service Canada, all late and with improper or false information on them, which prevented the Plaintiff from receiving Employment Insurance after her wrongful termination;b. the Defendant terminated the Plaintiff without asking for additional medical information, claiming that the Plaintiff abandoned her job; andc. the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff abandoned and quit her position with no support of the same.19. The Plaintiff claims to be entitled to damages for such conduct according to the principles set forth in Wallace v United Grain Growers, [1997]3 SCR 701 and Honda v Keays, [2008] 2 SCR 362, including aggravated and punitive damages.Continuation:Damages Claimed20. The Plaintiff therefore claims against the Defendant:
(a) damages for wrongful dismissal in an amount to be determined at trial;
(b) damages pursuant to the principles articulated in Wallace v United Grain Growers, t19971 3 SCR 701 and Honda v Keays, [2008] 2 SCR 362, including aggravated and punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial;
(c) general damages for inconvenience in an amount to be determined at trial;
(d) interest pursuant to the provisions of The Pre-Judgment lnterest Act, S.S. 1984-85-86, c. P-22,2',
(e) costs of this action; and
(f) such further and other relief the Plaintiff may request and this Honourable Court may allow.

OR
could the defamation also be considered sought under "Wallace" and/or "Honda v Keays" ?

The lies were on the ROEs (abandoned and quit) and via telephone conversations to 2 Service Canada employees of which I also have the documentation through an ATIP request.In order for it to be considered Defamation (defamatory libel) is it enough to have it on the ROEs?When you are saying "likely covered" does it mean I can claim it? Or can the judge be of the opinion that this would not be considered as defamation?Who could be "others"? Potential new employer who asked for a reference check?Question:
Did you forget the word "Also"?If the lies were with respect to the ROE then you've likely covered it but if they also lied about you to others then that would ALSO be defamation and you didn't include it.

Did you mean:
And theY lied to the SERVICE CANADA employees and that is defamation. ?

the defamation to the service canada employees is also covered with my statement of claim?

Ok, thank you have a good night.