Brian A. Grosman

The defendant brought a motion to stay a wrongful dismissal action on the basis that Ontario was a forum non conveniens and that the dispute should instead be litigated in New York State.

The court accepted that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because the defendant corporation maintained its registered head office in Ontario.

Applying the forum non conveniens analysis from leading authorities, the court held that the moving party had not established that New York was clearly the more appropriate forum.

Factors such as the Ontario employment contract, the defendant’s presence-based jurisdiction in Ontario, and the loss of legitimate juridical advantages in a U.S. at‑will employment regime supported maintaining the action in Ontario.

The motion to stay the proceeding was therefore dismissed.

The appellants, having been successful in their appeal which struck the respondent's counterclaim and third-party claim, sought their costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court fixed the costs for both appellants but declined to include any fees or disbursements related to a voluntary mediation.

The court held that voluntary mediation is not a step authorized by the Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a matter of policy, the costs of voluntary mediation should be borne equally by the parties to encourage settlement efforts without fear of increased costs if unsuccessful.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motions under Rules 20 and 21 to strike the respondent's claims for constructive dismissal and related torts as statute-barred.

The motion judge had found that the claims could have been discovered before the respondent resigned, potentially triggering the six-year limitation period under the transitional provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that a cause of action for constructive dismissal arises only when the employee resigns.

As the resignation occurred in May 2004, the two-year limitation period applied and the claims were statute-barred.

The court also held that the motion judge erred in linking the Rule 20 and Rule 21 motions, and found no triable issue regarding promissory estoppel or acknowledgment of liability.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal claim against his former employer.

The trial judge had found that the appellant resigned when he stated he could not work for a rival who was appointed president.

The Court of Appeal overturned the finding of resignation, concluding the appellant was wrongfully dismissed.

However, the Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the nine-month notice period was reasonable, that the appellant suffered no damages for lost income because he mitigated his losses with higher-paying subsequent employment, and that the unambiguous language of the employer's stock option plans precluded the appellant from exercising options that would have vested during the notice period.

The appeal was dismissed.

The representative plaintiff in a proposed class proceeding sought to introduce a settlement agreement and reasons for decision from a prior Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) prosecution against the defendants.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's refusal to strike these documents from the plaintiff's affidavit, arguing they were protected by settlement privilege and inadmissible.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the settlement agreement and reasons, finding that the defendants waived privilege by entering a public regulatory settlement, which was tantamount to a guilty plea.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to strike the statement of allegations, as mere allegations have no evidentiary value.

The appellant employer dismissed the respondent employee.

An adjudicator found the dismissal unjust and ordered the employer to provide a letter of recommendation with specified factual content and to answer any reference inquiries exclusively by sending that letter.

The employer appealed, arguing the orders infringed its freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Charter applies to administrative adjudicators.

The Court found that both the positive order to write the letter and the negative order restricting further comments infringed s. 2(b) but were saved under s. 1 as reasonable limits designed to counteract the consequences of the unjust dismissal.