Andrew F. Camman

The plaintiff, a Health, Safety and Training Manager, was terminated for cause by her employer after 13 years of service.

The termination stemmed from her handling of her own workplace safety and insurance claim, including delayed reporting, inconsistencies, and a conflict of interest.

The court found the employee's conduct, including dishonesty and suborning a lower-level employee, constituted just cause for dismissal.

The employee's claim for wrongful dismissal and punitive damages was dismissed.

The employer's counterclaim for an unpaid loan was also dismissed, as the loan was held by a separate numbered company, not the employer.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal multiple orders and requested extensions of time.

The Divisional Court denied the motion and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $2,500.

This appeal concerned a failed residential real estate transaction where the buyers' financing fell through, leading the sellers to terminate the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) and retain the deposit.

The sellers subsequently resold the property for a higher price.

The buyers sought specific performance, damages, or relief from forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that the sellers were entitled to terminate the APS as they were ready, willing, and able to close, and that relief from forfeiture was not warranted, despite the sellers realizing a profit on the resale.

The court also addressed the duty of honest performance and the effect of anticipatory repudiation.

The applicants sought specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property, punitive damages, or in the alternative, relief from forfeiture and return of their $50,000 deposit.

The respondents terminated the agreement after the applicants' financing fell through and they requested an extension of the closing date.

The court found that the termination was due to the applicants' inability to close, not merely their request for an extension.

The court dismissed the application, finding no improper termination, no bad faith by the respondents, and no unconscionability in the respondents retaining the deposit, despite reselling the property for a higher price.

The defendant brought a motion to quash two summonses to witness issued by the plaintiffs, which sought to examine two of the defendant's lawyers on pending interlocutory motions regarding the sale of jointly owned property.

The court quashed the summonses on three grounds: failure to comply with service requirements under the Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to demonstrate that the lawyers' evidence was relevant and necessary, and abuse of process.

The court found the summonses were issued for ulterior purposes, including gathering evidence for a separate action against the lawyers and attempting to create a conflict of interest to preclude them from acting as counsel.

This is a costs endorsement following the Court of Appeal's decision on an appeal of a wrongful dismissal case.

The appellant insurance company sought to reduce the respondent employee's damages by challenging the reasonable notice period and bonus entitlements.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reducing the notice period but dismissing other arguments.

The respondent sought clarification on bonus entitlements and the parties exchanged submissions on costs.

The Court declined to entertain new arguments raised by the appellant at the costs stage and awarded costs to the respondent.

A senior vice president with 37 years of service was terminated without cause following a minor dispute over promotional sporting event tickets.

The motion judge awarded 30 months' notice and full bonus entitlements during the notice period.

On appeal, the employer challenged both the notice period and the bonus entitlement.

The Court of Appeal reduced the notice period to 24 months, finding no exceptional circumstances warranting a longer period.

However, the court upheld the bonus entitlement, finding that while the termination provision in the bonus plans was unambiguous and would have limited the employee's entitlement, the provision was unenforceable because it was not properly communicated to the employee by the employer.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful appeal by the defendants.

The appellants were entitled to costs on a full indemnity basis for the motion and proceedings below, with Corus Entertainment Inc. awarded $30,000 and the McSloy appellants awarded $30,000, both inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

On the appeal itself, the appellants were successful and entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis, with Corus awarded $15,000 and the McSloy appellants awarded $15,000, both inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The request for damages under section 137.1(9) of the Courts of Justice Act was denied.

An incumbent city councillor sued his political opponent and members of her campaign team, along with a local radio station, for defamation arising from statements made during a municipal election campaign.

The defendant candidate had referenced the plaintiff's dated sexual assault conviction and characterized it as consistent with a pattern of bullying and intimidation.

The motion judge dismissed the defendants' motion to dismiss under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed all claims, finding that the defendants' expressions related to a matter of public interest and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient harm to outweigh the public interest in protecting freedom of expression during an election campaign.

The plaintiff, a 62-year-old senior vice-president with 37 years of service, was terminated without cause.

On a motion for partial summary judgment, the court awarded a 30-month notice period, finding exceptional circumstances due to his age, tenure, and lack of comparable employment opportunities.

The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to full bonus payments under the company's Long Term and Short Term Incentive Plans during the notice period, as the forfeiture clauses were not properly communicated, were ambiguous, and violated the Employment Standards Act.

The plaintiff corporation brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that an associate dentist breached an Associate Agreement and a permanent injunction.

The dispute arose from the termination of the associate's arrangement with the plaintiff and another principal dentist at a dental clinic, and the associate's subsequent agreement to purchase the other principal dentist's practice.

The responding parties argued that the Associate Agreement was subject to an overarching Practice Agreement and that the plaintiff's termination was not in good faith.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly regarding the common law duty of honest performance in contracts and the advisability of partial summary judgment in the context of the litigation as a whole.

The plaintiff was seriously injured when attacked by a rival gang member in a provincial jail.

The plaintiff sued Ontario and others, alleging that a correctional officer was negligent in placing the plaintiff and the assailant in the same unit despite the jail's policy of separating members of the same gang.

The trial judge found for the plaintiff.

On appeal, Ontario argued that the policy negated any duty of care and that the trial judge erred in applying the standard of care and finding causation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the policy did not negate the common law duty of care, that the correctional officer breached the standard of care by failing to consider inmate incompatibility, and that the negligence caused the plaintiff's injuries.

The plaintiff sued his former employer and a disability insurer for long-term disability benefits after suffering a stroke shortly after his termination.

In his reply to the employer's statement of defence, the plaintiff claimed wrongful dismissal.

The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing the reply raised a new, statute-barred cause of action.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the statement of claim's factual matrix provided sufficient notice of the wrongful dismissal claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the employer's appeal, agreeing that the wrongful dismissal claim was not a new cause of action and came as no surprise to the employer.

The plaintiff, an inmate and member of the Malvern Crew street gang, was severely beaten by a rival gang member while housed at the Don Jail.

He sued the Crown in negligence for placing him in the same unit as the rival gang member.

The court found that the Crown owed a duty of care and breached it by failing to consider inmate compatibility when applying its numeric balancing policy for housing gang members.

The Crown knew or ought to have known of the severe security threat posed by the rival gang member.

The court found the Crown liable for the assault, but reduced the damages by 15% due to the plaintiff's contributory negligence in failing to request protective custody.

The defendant employer moved for summary judgment seeking to strike portions of the reply, bar amendment of the statement of claim, and dismiss the action on the basis that the reply advanced a new wrongful dismissal cause of action outside the limitation period.

The court applied the broader, factually-oriented and purposive approach to whether a pleading asserts a new cause of action, focusing on whether the original statement of claim gave notice of the factual matrix.

The court held that the claim for loss of disability benefits arising from termination was already grounded in the pleaded employment relationship, termination, disability, and alleged breach of the employment contract.

The reply merely answered the defence allegation of termination for misconduct and did not take the employer by surprise.

The summary judgment motion was dismissed.

Following trial, the plaintiffs recovered $18,645 against a home inspector for failing to report a sloping kitchen floor but were unsuccessful on their principal claim alleging differential settlement of the residence.

The plaintiffs sought full indemnity costs exceeding $139,000, while the defendant argued that costs should be denied or awarded in its favour because the recovery fell within the Small Claims Court jurisdiction and because the plaintiffs failed on the major issue at trial.

The court held that it was reasonable for the plaintiffs to have pursued the action under the ordinary procedure and declined to deny costs under Rules 57.05(1) or 76.13.

However, given the plaintiffs’ lack of success on the central issue and proportionality considerations, their costs were substantially reduced.

Expert disbursements were disallowed and a global costs award was fixed with a set‑off for the defendant’s mid‑trial motion costs.

The plaintiffs purchased a home and subsequently discovered foundation settlement and a sloping kitchen floor.

They sued their home inspector for negligence, alleging failure to identify and report structural defects.

The court found that while the inspector was not negligent regarding the sub-surface soil conditions and differential settlement, he breached the standard of care by failing to effectively report the significant slope in the kitchen floor in his written report.

The plaintiffs were awarded $18,645 in damages for the cost to level the kitchen floor.

The parties resolved the matter in terms of a settlement agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal without costs in accordance with the settlement.

The appellant seized collateral from a third party who had purchased it from the debtor, arguing its security interest attached upon possession under s. 11(2)(b) of the Personal Property Security Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the seizure did not constitute possession sufficient for attachment under s. 11(1) to defeat the third party's interests, as the appellant did not have a signed security agreement prior to the seizure.

The appellant received a retroactive lump sum payment for a Canada Pension Plan disability pension and brought a proposed class action claiming interest on the payment.

The Attorney General moved to strike the statement of claim.

The motion judge struck the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment but allowed the claims based on constructive trust and the inherent power of the court to award interest to proceed.

On appeal and cross-appeal, the Court of Appeal held that it was plain and obvious that none of the claims could succeed, as the comprehensive statutory scheme of the Canada Pension Plan does not provide for the payment of interest on benefits.

The appeal was dismissed, the cross-appeal was allowed, and the action was dismissed.