Allison Greene

The defendant employer brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the plaintiff’s human rights claim from an amended statement of claim arising from his termination following public statements about the Syrian conflict.

The defendant argued the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because the alleged dismissal was based on political opinion, which is not a protected ground under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The court held that, accepting the pleaded facts as true, it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiff’s views could not constitute a creed linked to protected grounds such as religion or place of origin.

Accordingly, the human rights claim was allowed to proceed.

However, certain paragraphs of the pleading were struck under Rule 25.11 as irrelevant and prejudicial to a fair trial.

Following a wrongful dismissal summary judgment decision, the court determined the remaining issues of pre‑judgment interest and costs.

The defendant argued that pre‑judgment interest was unavailable because it was not awarded in the earlier endorsement, while alternatively seeking calculation on an instalment basis.

The court held that the issue could properly be determined post‑judgment and awarded pre‑judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act using the lump sum approach because the employee received only a lump sum statutory payment on termination and would have received a lump sum payment in lieu of notice if proper notice had been given.

On costs, although the successful plaintiff sought $17,500 plus disbursements and HST and relied on an offer to settle, the court found the request excessive given the limited procedural steps and brief summary judgment motion.

Costs were fixed at $10,500 all‑inclusive on a partial indemnity basis.

Following summary judgment in an employment dispute, the parties disagreed on the proper calculation of mitigation income to deduct from the damages award.

The moving party sought clarification that mitigation should be calculated using net income rather than gross revenue from subsequent earnings.

The responding party argued that the issue had not been raised during the summary judgment motion and could not be altered through a clarification request.

The court held that the question involved new factual and legal determinations and could not be resolved as a simple clarification of the judgment.

The issue was reopened and directed to proceed by motion with supporting evidence and cross-examination.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action following the closure of the defendant’s manufacturing operations.

The court considered the appropriate reasonable notice period, whether overtime should be included in calculating damages, the compensability of lost employment benefits, and whether mitigation income earned during the statutory notice period under the Employment Standards Act should reduce common law damages.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court determined that a 20‑month notice period was appropriate.

The court held that overtime formed an integral component of the employee’s compensation and must be included in damages, and that the employee was entitled to compensation for lost benefits.

Mitigation income earned during the statutory ESA notice period was not deductible from damages beyond ESA minimum entitlements.