C. Colraine

The defendant former employer brought a motion to stay the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal and breach of contract action pursuant to s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The plaintiff opposed the stay, arguing the arbitration clause was invalid, the oppression claim was not arbitrable, and the defendant had delayed unduly by filing a statement of defence and counterclaim before raising the arbitration clause.

The court applied the five-part framework from Haas v. Gunasekaram and found that the dispute arguably fell within the broad arbitration clause.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments under s. 7(2), noting the defendant's counsel only discovered the arbitration clause during documentary discovery and raised it immediately.

The motion to stay the action was granted.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal claim, arguing it was statute-barred under s. 97(2) of the Employment Standards Act because the plaintiff had previously filed an ESA complaint.

The plaintiff, who was terminated for alleged theft of prescriptions, also pleaded intentional torts including negligent misrepresentation and conspiracy.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the ESA adjudication scheme was not intended to bar independent claims for intentional torts, and the civil action should proceed to trial where the trial judge can determine if the severance claim is barred alongside the independent causes of action.