Aislinn Elizabeth Quigley Reid

Following a wrongful dismissal trial where the plaintiff was awarded $682,151.18 in damages, the parties could not agree on costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs of $215,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the defendant's conduct warranted elevated costs because it maintained a legally incorrect position regarding restricted stock units contrary to binding appellate authority, only abandoning it weeks before trial, which unnecessarily increased the plaintiff's litigation costs.

The plaintiff, a 59-year-old executive with 18.5 years of service, was terminated without cause by the defendant employer.

The court awarded a 24-month reasonable notice period, finding that the plaintiff's age, tenure, and executive position warranted the maximum standard notice.

The court also awarded damages for a discretionary bonus that was unfairly denied in the year prior to termination, and damages for restricted stock units and stock options that would have vested during the notice period, calculated based on the plaintiff's historical holding patterns.

Claims for a bonus during the notice period and for aggravated and punitive damages were dismissed.

The appellants, private practice oral surgeons, appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing their application for judicial review of a hospital board's decision to cancel their operating room access and hospital privileges.

The board made the decision without a hearing, relying on s. 44 of the Public Hospitals Act, which allows a hospital to revoke privileges when ceasing to provide a service.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the board's interpretation of s. 44 was reasonable, that the termination of the specific operating room access constituted ceasing a 'service', and that the board was not required to hold a hearing or consider the appellants' affidavits.

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 respondent psychiatrist brought a motion under s. 19(1) of the Health Care Consent Act to administer antipsychotic medication to an involuntary patient pending his appeal of a Consent and Capacity Board decision.

The Board had confirmed the psychiatrist's finding that the patient was incapable of consenting to treatment for a schizophrenia relapse.

The court granted the motion, finding that the patient's condition was likely to deteriorate rapidly without treatment, that he had previously responded well to the proposed medication, and that the treatment was necessary before the final disposition of the appeal.

The applicants, seven private practice oral and maxillofacial surgeons, applied for judicial review of a hospital board's decision to cancel their access to operating rooms.

They argued they were denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board's decision was a decision to 'cease a service' under s. 44 of the Public Hospitals Act, which expressly displaces the common law right to notice or a hearing.

The hospital had cancelled the legacy program to comply with its funding obligations under a Hospital Service Accountability Agreement.

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.

The plaintiff, a 62-year-old managerial employee with 38 years of service, was terminated without cause shortly after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

He brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for wrongful dismissal, including a 30-month notice period, lost Restricted Stock Units (RSUs), and bonuses.

The court granted summary judgment, awarding a 27-month notice period due to exceptional circumstances, including his age, lengthy service, specialized skills, and the economic impact of the pandemic.

The court also awarded damages for RSUs that would have vested during the notice period, finding the termination provisions did not unambiguously oust his common law entitlements, but dismissed the claim for discretionary bonuses.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming the revocation of his hospital privileges at Windsor Regional Hospital.

The hospital revoked his privileges due to his disruptive behaviour and refusal to comply with a new 'Model of Care' for renal patients.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's reasons were sufficient and that there was ample evidence of the appellant's disruptive conduct, which undermined the hospital's policies and staff, justifying the revocation of his privileges.

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 defendant employer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a wrongful dismissal action, arguing the plaintiff employee had resigned, abandoned his employment, or that the contract was frustrated due to his illness.

The plaintiff had taken a medical leave for depression and anxiety, and his short-term disability benefits were terminated by the plan administrator.

When the plaintiff refused to return to work on medical advice but also did not appeal the benefits denial, the employer deemed him to have resigned pursuant to its policy.

The court dismissed the employer's motion and instead granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, finding no clear and unequivocal resignation, no abandonment, and no frustration of contract, concluding the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed.

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.

The plaintiffs and a defendant by counterclaim, Mr. Sauro, brought motions to strike portions of the statement of defence and counterclaim.

The plaintiffs sought to strike paragraphs alleging ulterior motive and financial mismanagement.

The court struck the paragraphs pleading motive as frivolous and vexatious, but retained those pleading causation.

Mr. Sauro sought to strike the counterclaim against him, arguing it was improperly constituted as a counterclaim rather than a third-party claim.

The court agreed, finding Mr. Sauro was not a necessary and proper party to the counterclaim against the plaintiffs, and struck the counterclaim against him.

The moving party hospital authority brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the responding party physician from publicly commenting on social media about matters at issue in his pending appeal regarding medical privileges, and to require him to remove past posts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to demonstrate irreparable harm to its ability to participate in the appeal process under s. 134(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court also held that the balance of convenience did not favour the broad injunction sought, as it would seriously curtail the responding party's freedom of expression.

The appellant doctor sued the respondent hospital, producing emails during the litigation that the hospital suspected were fabricated.

After the action settled, the doctor applied for reappointment to the hospital's medical staff.

The hospital sought to use an affidavit obtained during the litigation, which questioned the emails' authenticity, at a Medical Advisory Committee meeting.

The application judge granted relief from the deemed undertaking rule under Rule 30.1.01(8) to permit this use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the doctor's appeal, finding no error in the application judge's exercise of discretion, as the parties were the same and the interest of justice in denouncing potentially fabricated evidence outweighed any non-existent prejudice to the appellant.

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.

The appellant physician moved for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) that confirmed the revocation of his hospital privileges.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant did not maintain a firm intention to appeal within the prescribed time limit, failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, and that the appeal lacked merit.

Furthermore, granting the extension would cause significant prejudice to the respondent hospital, which had already moved forward with staffing and budgeting decisions.

The Independent Financial Brokers of Canada (IFBC) applied for a review of the Ontario Securities Commission's decision to approve an amendment to a Mutual Fund Dealers Association (MFDA) by-law.

The MFDA and Commission Staff challenged the panel's jurisdiction and the IFBC's standing.

The hearing panel dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction under sections 21.7, 21.1(4), and 144 of the Securities Act to review a policy decision made by the Commission as a whole.

Furthermore, the panel held that the IFBC, as an industry lobby group, was not 'directly affected' or 'affected' by the by-law approval, and therefore lacked standing to bring the application.