Angela Maureen Lillian Wiggins

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal damages, arguing the termination clause in his employment contract was unenforceable.

The court found that while provisions regarding health benefits and termination for cause were valid, the clause was ambiguous as to whether it excluded severance pay when providing termination pay.

Due to this ambiguity, the termination clause was held invalid.

The plaintiff was awarded common law damages for the period between his termination and when he mitigated his damages by finding new employment.

The union filed a grievance alleging dismissal without just cause and discrimination.

Prior to the hearing, the parties sought direction on particulars, production of medical documents, and the order of proceeding.

The parties reached an agreement on these preliminary issues, which the arbitrator issued as a consent order.

The union was directed to produce medical records, and the order of proceeding was established with the employer proceeding first on the issue of absenteeism.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay and lack of a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations relating to events prior to the applicant's lay-off were filed out of time without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The remaining timely allegation, that the respondent objected to the applicant seeking a WSIB specialist appointment, was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success because there was no evidence linking the objection to the applicant's disability.

An employee appealed a trial judgment dismissing his claim for unpaid bonuses following termination without cause.

The employment contract contained a limitation clause stating that bonuses did not accrue and were only earned and payable on the designated pay-out date.

The trial judge found the limitation clause unambiguous and enforceable.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding that the parties had clearly agreed on how and when bonuses would be declared, earned, accrued, and paid.

The court rejected arguments based on unconscionability and public policy, noting that the bonus provisions were freely negotiated.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.