Chris Justice

The plaintiff sold seeds for the defendant for 19 years, receiving monthly commission advances.

When the defendant withheld an advance due to accumulated deficits, the plaintiff claimed constructive dismissal.

The court found the plaintiff was a dependent contractor, not an employee, and was constructively dismissed, awarding damages based on a 21-month notice period.

However, the defendant counterclaimed for the accumulated deficits.

The court held the defendant was estopped from claiming deficits prior to the 2020-2021 season due to its silence, but allowed the counterclaim for the final year.

Setting off the amounts, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant the net difference.

The plaintiff corporation brought a motion for the recovery of two vehicles from the defendant, its former general manager.

The defendant had failed to return the vehicles despite a previous interlocutory injunction order.

The court found that the plaintiff had satisfied all requirements under Rule 44 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the recovery of personal property.

The defendant's arguments, including alleged shareholder consent, wrongful termination claims, and challenges to corporate directorship changes, were rejected as insufficient to justify retaining the vehicles.

The court ordered the immediate return of the vehicles and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the defendant employer, Bayer Inc., moved to compel the plaintiff, Lara Maalouf, to answer refused discovery questions regarding her vaccination status and views on vaccination, and for a further affidavit of documents.

The court granted the motion in part, compelling answers to the questions as they were relevant to the pleadings, particularly the employer's defence of just cause and failure to mitigate.

However, the request for a further affidavit of documents was dismissed, as the employer failed to prove the existence of unproduced relevant documents.

In a wrongful dismissal claim, the defendant sought an adjournment of a scheduled 3-day summary trial, citing busyness and inability to adhere to a court-ordered timetable for document delivery.

The plaintiff opposed the adjournment.

The court denied the defendant's request, emphasizing that fixed trial dates are serious and require exceptional circumstances for adjournment, which were not present.

The court ordered the defendant to deliver its affidavit of documents promptly and for the trial to proceed as scheduled.