A.B. Schwisberg

In a wrongful dismissal action by a short-service senior construction employee, the court rejected the employer's unpleaded argument that the employment contract was void for alleged misrepresentation of qualifications.

Applying the Bardal factors, and taking into account the employer's bad-faith contractual conduct and pre-employment misrepresentations about corporate value and promised equity, the court fixed reasonable notice at eight months.

The court also found a clear contractual breach where the employer failed to issue the promised 5% shareholding and accepted evidence that the employee had been told those shares were worth $500,000.

Damages of eight months' salary plus $500,000 for the unissued shares were awarded.

The plaintiff, a scooter retailer, sued a competing retailer for defamation based on statements made by the defendant's principal to private investigators hired by the plaintiff.

The court found that the statements, which accused the plaintiff of unethical and illegal business practices, were defamatory and published.

The court awarded $10,000 in general damages but declined to grant a permanent injunction, finding no evidence that the defendants would continue to make defamatory statements after the judgment.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to strike out allegations of the tort of intimidation from its statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the tort of intimidation requires pleading not only a threat and intent to injure, but also that an act was taken or forgone as a result of the threat, causing damages.

As the appellant only pleaded a threat and intent to injure, the claim was properly struck without leave to amend.