Andrea Stoddart

The plaintiff, a long‑term managerial employee terminated without cause, moved for summary judgment seeking damages for wrongful dismissal beyond the statutory minimums paid under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The employer argued that contractual terms limited notice to statutory minimums, that bonus payments should not form part of damages, and that mitigation issues required a trial.

The court found the contractual termination clause void for violating statutory minimum standards and rejected the employer’s claim that it had been validly amended.

Applying Bardal factors, the court held that the employee was entitled to 18 months’ reasonable notice and that bonus payments formed an integral component of compensation during part of the notice period.

Summary judgment was granted with damages reflecting compensation and benefits during the notice period, subject to a trust for mitigation income.

The plaintiffs, franchisors of fast food restaurants, moved under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for orders freezing the defendants’ bank accounts and compelling disclosure of financial records after alleging diversion of franchise fees.

The court considered whether the allegedly diverted funds constituted a specific fund capable of preservation under Rule 45.02, and whether the balance of convenience supported interim relief.

Finding a serious issue to be tried and drawing an adverse inference from the defendant’s erasure of a laptop hard drive containing relevant records, the court concluded the plaintiffs had a strong claim to the disputed funds.

The defendants’ bank accounts were ordered frozen and full banking records disclosed.

Requests for a Mareva injunction against the defendant’s residence and non-competition relief were refused due to insufficient evidence.