5 total
Appeal of defamation dismissal denied; costs award remitted due to incorrect application of Rule 49.10.
The appellant appealed a trial judgment that dismissed his defamation and related claims against his former employer and awarded him only $17,192.57 for wrongful dismissal, while ordering him to pay $35,000 in costs.
The appellant argued the trial judge erred in her defamation analysis, credibility findings, and acceptance of unpleaded defences.
The Divisional Court dismissed the substantive grounds of appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the employer's negative reference was substantially true.
However, the court granted leave to appeal the costs award, finding the trial judge erred by applying Rule 49.10(1) instead of Rule 49.10(2) for a defendant's offer to settle, and remitted the costs issue to the trial judge.
Defamation claim over negative reference dismissed due to qualified privilege; four months' notice awarded.
The plaintiff, Adam Papp, brought a claim for wrongful dismissal, defamation, and other damages against his former employer, Stokes Economic Consulting Inc., and its president, Ernest Stokes.
The defendants conceded wrongful dismissal without cause, disputing only the quantum of reasonable notice.
The court found that Ernest Stokes' statements made during a reference check, which led to Papp being denied a job, were substantially true and protected by qualified privilege, as Stokes did not act with malice or recklessness.
Consequently, the defamation claim and associated damages were dismissed.
The court awarded Papp four months' reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal, reduced by payments already received.
Incumbent employee granted intervenor status in human rights application challenging his hiring.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, and place of origin after being denied a Chemical Engineer position.
The successful candidate for the position filed a Request to Intervene, arguing the Tribunal's decision could directly affect his employment status.
The Tribunal granted the request, finding it appropriate to grant intervenor status given the potential effect of the proceeding on the incumbent employee.
Request for production of hiring competition documents denied as materials were provided, irrelevant, or non-existent.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of documents related to a hiring competition, including interview notes, test questions, and reference checks of another candidate.
The Tribunal declined to order production, noting that the respondent had already agreed to provide typed copies of handwritten notes and other relevant materials.
The requested test questions were found not arguably relevant because the applicant had been waived through those stages of the competition.
The Tribunal also noted it cannot order the production of non-existent documents.
Tribunal grants applicant's requests for extension of time and to compel respondent's document disclosure.
The applicant in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination and reprisal brought three procedural requests.
The Tribunal denied the request to strike a document allegedly filed by the respondent because the document was not in the Tribunal's file.
The Tribunal granted the applicant a two-day retrospective extension of time to disclose documents, finding no prejudice to the respondent.
Finally, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to disclose its arguably relevant documents within 15 days, as it had failed to comply with its disclosure obligations.
