Chris Randall

The appellant, a former bank executive, appealed a decision dismissing his motion to amend his wrongful dismissal statement of claim.

He sought to add a $10 million claim for unjust enrichment and disgorgement, arguing the employer profited from retaining his unpaid compensation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the proposed amendment legally untenable.

The court held there was no corresponding deprivation to the employer's enrichment, as the appellant's loss was limited to the time value of money, which is adequately addressed by the interest provisions in the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant, Johnson Controls Canada LP, appealed a summary judgment that awarded the respondent, John Maynard, full entitlement under his employment contract, including the value of Restricted Stock Units (RSUs).

Maynard was terminated without cause, and his compensation included RSUs subject to a forfeiture provision he was unaware of.

The motion judge found the exclusion of RSUs from the termination payment calculation breached the contract.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that Johnson Controls could not force Maynard to sign a release based on an improperly calculated amount and that the RSUs were part of his compensation entitlement.

The plaintiff, in a wrongful dismissal and age discrimination action, brought a motion to compel answers to discovery refusals and undertakings.

The court ordered the defendant to answer questions regarding the age and termination status of other senior management team members, finding them relevant to the defendant's pleadings.

However, the court dismissed requests for the recruitment file of a replacement executive director and notes from an in camera board meeting, finding the former irrelevant and the latter protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal damages after being terminated without cause.

The employer argued the employment contract limited termination pay to base salary and required the plaintiff to sign a release to receive an enhanced lump sum.

The court found the contract language was not sufficiently clear to exclude the value of unvested Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) and bonuses from the notice period compensation.

The court also held it was unreasonable for the employer to withhold the lump sum payment because the plaintiff refused to sign a release while the compensation amount was in dispute.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff for $427,891.18.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment by the defendants, the court determined the quantum and scale of costs.

The defendants sought $97,599.95 in substantial indemnity costs, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found the offer was valid and the plaintiff fared less favourably, justifying costs on a higher scale.

However, noting the lack of complexity and the principle of proportionality, the court fixed costs at $45,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss an employment-related action on the basis of a signed full and final release executed at termination.

The responding party argued the release was unenforceable due to economic duress and unconscionability arising from dismissal, illness, and alleged inequality of bargaining power.

Applying the summary judgment framework, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, found no illegitimate coercive pressure, and concluded the employer had taken sufficient steps to mitigate any bargaining imbalance, including extensions and encouragement to seek legal advice.

The court also held the bargain was not improvident given the payment received and the nature of the release.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action.

The applicant tenant brought an application for a declaration that the respondent landlord unlawfully terminated its commercial lease for a parking lot.

The landlord had posted a Notice of Termination alleging the tenant abandoned the premises.

The court found that the landlord's notice did not comply with s. 19(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act because it failed to provide the tenant with a reasonable opportunity to remedy the alleged breach or make compensation.

Consequently, the court declared the termination of the lease invalid.