Benjamin Thomas Aberant

The plaintiff brought a refusals motion seeking an order that the defendant answer undertakings and refusals from the continued examination for discovery of its representative, and that the representative re-attend for a continued examination.

The motion addressed ten groupings of refusals relating to succession planning, supervisor qualifications and conduct, harassment policy, employment records, conflict of interest, and HR practices in a wrongful dismissal action alleging inducement and misrepresentation.

The court granted some questions and denied others across the groupings, finding divided success.

The defendant was ordered to answer within 45 days and the plaintiff was permitted one further one-hour examination by Zoom.

Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a wrongful dismissal action on the grounds that it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff was terminated on January 4, 2022, for non-compliance with vaccination policies.

He initially pursued proceedings in Federal Court, which were unsuccessful.

The plaintiff did not commence the present action until August 26, 2024.

The court found that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known all material facts necessary to discover his claim on the date of termination, and that the two-year limitation period expired on January 4, 2024.

The plaintiff's misunderstanding of the legal significance of the facts and his belief that the federal government was responsible did not suspend the running of the limitation period.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed as statute-barred.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking to enforce a non-competition clause against a former software developer who resigned to work for a competitor.

The defendants brought cross-motions seeking a declaration that the clause was void.

The court found the matter appropriate for partial summary judgment.

The court held that the non-competition clause was overly broad in its scope of prohibited activities, geographic scope, and temporal scope, and was ambiguous.

The clause was declared unreasonable, unenforceable, and void ab initio.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her claim that her employer failed to reasonably accommodate her disability.

The HRTO had found that the employer attempted to accommodate the applicant, but she failed to participate in the cooperative accommodation process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the adjudicator made no error of law and reached a reasonable conclusion supported by the evidence.

An employer sought an interlocutory injunction enforcing a non‑competition covenant against a former executive who joined a competitor.

The employer alleged breach of a 2008 employment agreement and argued that, where a clear negative covenant is breached, the usual injunction test should not apply.

The court applied a modified RJR‑MacDonald test and held the employer failed to establish a strong prima facie case because the covenant may have been superseded by a later agreement and was arguably overly broad and unnecessary to protect legitimate interests.

The court also noted that the inevitable disclosure doctrine is not recognized in Canada and that evidence of irreparable harm was speculative.

The motion to enjoin the employee and the competitor was dismissed, although the employee was ordered not to disclose confidential information or solicit the employer’s customers.