Aislinn Elizabeth Quigley Reid

The court dismissed IBM Canada Ltd.'s appeal from an endorsement refusing to strike certain paragraphs from Bruce Maule’s Fourth Amended Statement of Claim in a wrongful dismissal action.

The court found that the pleadings regarding systemic age discrimination and the employment circumstances of other IBM US employees were relevant, not overly broad, and not an abuse of process.

The court held that the pleadings were sufficiently particularized and provable, and that any concerns about discovery scope or prejudice could be managed at trial.

The decision affirms the importance of allowing claims of systemic discrimination to proceed where material facts are pleaded.

The defendant, IBM Canada Ltd., brought a motion to strike certain pleadings from the plaintiff's Second Amended Statement of Claim.

The impugned pleadings alleged systemic age discrimination by IBM U.S. and referenced employment circumstances of IBM U.S. employees, which the plaintiff claimed were connected to his wrongful dismissal and age discrimination by IBM Canada.

The court dismissed IBM Canada's motion, finding the pleadings relevant to the claims of systemic discrimination and punitive damages, particularly given the alleged operational connection between IBM U.S. and IBM Canada regarding the plaintiff's employment decisions.

The dismissal was conditional on the plaintiff making proposed amendments to narrow the scope of the allegations.

IBM Canada Inc. appealed a summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal claim, challenging the 26-month reasonable notice period and the award of damages for Restricted Stock Units (RSUs).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that non-transferrable skills and the COVID-19 pandemic constituted exceptional circumstances justifying a notice period exceeding 24 months.

The court also upheld the RSU damages, finding the termination clause ambiguous and thus ineffective in limiting common law rights.

IBM Canada Ltd. appealed a summary judgment order that dismissed its motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to its former employee, Vinay Nagpal, for wrongful dismissal.

IBM argued that Nagpal had resigned, abandoned his position, or that his employment contract was frustrated.

The Court of Appeal dismissed IBM's appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that Nagpal did not resign or abandon his employment, and the contract was not frustrated.

The court also affirmed that the Short-Term Disability Policy's presumption of resignation was rebuttable by other evidence.

The issue of damages was remitted to the motion judge.

The Third Party sought costs after partially succeeding on a motion to strike claims in an Amended Third Party Claim.

The Defendant opposed, arguing the motion was unnecessary and the Third Party introduced a new issue late.

The court found divided success on the motion to strike and unreasonable behaviour from both parties, including the Defendant's poorly drafted Third Party Claim and the Third Party's improper Demand for Particulars and late introduction of an objection.

Consequently, no costs were awarded to either party.

The Third Party, RE/MAX Ontario-Atlantic Canada Inc. o/a RE/MAX Integra, brought a motion to strike portions of the Amended Third Party Claim filed by the Defendant, RE/MAX Core Realty Inc. The claims sought to be struck included allegations of unfair business practices, breaches of common law duties of fair dealing and good faith, breaches of the Arthur Wishart Act, and intentional interference with economic relations.

The court struck the claims for unfair business practices (by consent) and intentional interference with economic relations (without leave to amend).

The claims for breaches of common law and statutory duties of good faith were struck but with leave for the Defendant to amend its pleading to include necessary material facts linking the allegations to the Franchise Agreement.

The court also clarified that allegations regarding a disciplinary matter could be included as particulars for the good faith claims, provided they were properly tied to the Franchise Agreement.

A school board sought court approval of a proposed methodology to distribute approximately $1.7 million received following the windup of a group insurance trust.

The plan allocated a portion to future benefit premium reserves and distributed the remainder to non‑union employees enrolled in the insurance policies as of June 30, 2006, using a banding system based on years of participation.

An objector representing former employees argued that excluding individuals who ceased enrollment before that date was unreasonable because they had contributed premiums to the trust.

The court held that the board had broad discretion under the court‑approved trust windup terms and that basing distribution on enrollment as of June 30, 2006 was rational because that same metric determined the board’s share of the surplus.

The court also found it reasonable to consider administrative costs and data limitations in designing the methodology.

The proposed distribution methodology was approved.