Christopher Perri

This appeal concerned an alleged contract for the purchase and sale of goodwill in an investment business, with an alternative claim for unjust enrichment.

The trial judge found a binding contract or, alternatively, unjust enrichment.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's findings on contract formation (intention and essential terms), unjust enrichment, and mitigation of losses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's finding of a binding contract and declining to rule on the unjust enrichment finding.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding on mitigation, noting the appellant failed to meet the onus to show mitigation was possible.

The plaintiff in a certified class action regarding unpaid statutory vacation and holiday pay moved to settle the Notice Plan and Notice of Certification.

The parties disagreed on the opt-out deadline, the contents of the opt-out affidavit, and the text of the Notice of Certification.

The court held that the opt-out deadline should be 60 days after the last notice is published and that the opt-out affidavit must identify the individuals who opted out.

However, the court rejected the defendants' proposed revisions to the Notice of Certification, finding them to be unnecessary, unfair, and potentially intimidating to class members.

The Notice of Certification was approved substantially in the form drafted by class counsel.

The plaintiff, an investment advisor, brought an action against the defendant, a portfolio manager, for $90,000 based on an alleged agreement to buy out the plaintiff's participation rights in a book of business.

The court found that an email exchange between the parties constituted a binding contract, as the essential terms were agreed upon despite the lack of a formal signed document.

The court also found that the plaintiff's subsequent termination did not frustrate the contract.

Alternatively, the court held that the defendant was unjustly enriched by retaining the financial benefits of the book of business without compensating the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was awarded $90,000 plus pre-judgment interest.

Following the death of the judge who certified this national class action regarding vacation and public holiday pay, the parties could not agree on the terms of the certification order.

The plaintiff brought a motion to settle the order under rule 59.04(14).

The court settled the class definition start dates by applying the ultimate limitation periods for provinces that have them, and the basic limitation periods (adjusted for Covid-19 suspensions) for provinces that do not.

The court also compendiously restated the liability common issue to include unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a national class action alleging that the defendant brokerage firm failed to provide vacation and public holiday pay to commissioned employees in breach of employment standards legislation.

The defendant argued that commissions continued to be paid while employees were on vacation and that the onus was on employees to prove non-payment.

The court found that the employer bears the burden of proving statutory payments were recorded and made, and that the absence of a class-wide system to record and report these obligations provided some evidence of commonality.

The court certified the class action, finding all requirements under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for lack of jurisdiction.

The parties were co-workers and unionized teachers subject to a collective agreement.

The plaintiff had sued the defendant for defamation, intentional interference with economic relations, and intentional infliction of mental distress arising from workplace harassment complaints.

The court applied the exclusive jurisdiction model from Weber, finding that the essential character of the dispute was workplace-related and arose from the interpretation, application, administration, or violation of the collective agreement.

The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction, as the dispute must be resolved through the grievance arbitration process.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The applicants challenged the constitutionality of amendments to the Election Finances Act that extended the pre-election restricted spending period for third-party political advertising from six to twelve months.

The court found that the 12-month restriction infringed freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Oakes test, the court held that while the objective of fostering fair elections was pressing and substantial, the 12-month period failed the minimal impairment test because the government's own experts indicated a six-month period was effective.

The impugned provisions were declared of no force or effect.

The applicants in a constitutional application requested leave to file factums exceeding the 30-page limit prescribed by the Practice Direction.

The Attorney General opposed the request.

The court denied the request, emphasizing that the 30-page limit is a serious policy intended to focus counsel on the issues, and that leave is exceptional and granted sparingly.

The court noted that since there was still a week before the factums were due, counsel had sufficient time to produce shorter, more focused versions.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for breach of an employment contract, claiming entitlement to a 1.5% equity stake in the defendant limited partnership.

The parties disputed the nature of the agreement, the entity in which the equity was held, and the value of the shares, relying on conflicting pre-employment emails and formal documents.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting evidence and lack of valuation data created genuine issues of credibility and fact that required a trial.

The plaintiff, a retired insurance producer, brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that both 'assigned' and 'developed' clients should be included in the calculation of his deferred compensation pool under his employment contract.

The defendant employer argued that only 'developed' clients were included.

The court found no ambiguity in the employment contract, concluding that the clear language of the agreement allocated only 'new customers' (developed clients) to the deferred compensation pool.

The plaintiff's motion and claim were dismissed.

This appeal concerns a wrongful dismissal claim by a former wardrobe stylist and fashion studio manager who worked for the defendant for 23 years (1994-2017).

The motion judge found the employee was a dependent contractor from 1994 to 2004, then became an employee.

The termination clause was found void as it attempted to contract out of minimum standards under the Employment Standards Act.

The court awarded 21 months' pay in lieu of notice, 10 percent of base salary for loss of benefits, compensation for unlawful wage deductions, and damages for loss of cell phone allowance.

The appeal was dismissed on all grounds.

The moving party sought a motion to review a decision dismissing her motion for an order exempting her from the requirement to sign an undertaking not to disseminate audio recordings of court proceedings.

She also sought permission to video record the motion to review hearing itself.

The court held that parties are not entitled to obtain and disseminate audio or video recordings of proceedings on their own terms.

The open courts principle does not automatically override statutory restrictions on recording.

The court dismissed the motion to review and awarded costs to the respondent London District Catholic School Board.

The plaintiff was successful in her wrongful dismissal action and sought costs of $32,509.05, calculated on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of an unaccepted offer to settle, and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter.

The defendant argued the costs were excessive due to alleged double lawyering and overdone legal service, suggesting an award of $15,451.50.

The court found the plaintiff's costs claim to be fair, reasonable, and within the reasonable expectations of the defendant, awarding the full amount claimed.

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

The court found the plaintiff was a dependent contractor from 1994 to 2004 and an employee thereafter, entitling her to a 21-month reasonable notice period based on a 23-year relationship.

The employer's termination clause was held unenforceable for failing to maintain statutory benefits during the notice period.

The court awarded the plaintiff damages for pay in lieu of notice, loss of benefits, and reimbursement for unlawful wage deductions made under an unpaid vacation program.

The applicant brought a motion seeking several orders: dispensing with the requirement to sign a standard undertaking to obtain audio recordings of earlier motions; permission to transcribe those proceedings; direction to publish reasons of a prior motion judge; and permission to challenge the constitutional validity of portions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondents took no position on the motion.

The Attorney General of Ontario and Department of Justice Canada argued the motion was not properly before the court and that the Notice of Constitutional Question was a nullity.

The court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction, as the underlying appeal had been quashed in prior proceedings.

The respondents moved to quash an appeal brought to the Court of Appeal for Ontario on the basis that the appellant was seeking to appeal interlocutory orders of the Superior Court of Justice, which should have been appealed to the Divisional Court with leave.

The appellant sought to appeal orders made by Justice Lynne Leitch and Justice A. Duncan Grace, including an order transferring a judicial review application to the Divisional Court and a costs order of $10,000.

The Court of Appeal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal and granted the motion to quash, awarding nominal costs of $2,000 to the respondents.

Tagg Industries brought a motion for summary judgment against its former employee, Otto Rieder, seeking repayment of a $40,000 loan.

Tagg argued Rieder was fired for just cause, thus forfeiting a bonus that would have forgiven the loan.

Rieder countered that he was fired without just cause and was entitled to common law notice, which would extend to the bonus vesting date, thereby forgiving the loan.

Rieder also sought summary judgment on his counterclaim for wrongful dismissal.

The court dismissed Tagg's motion, finding Rieder was fired without just cause.

The court determined Rieder was entitled to at least one month's common law notice, calculated as a calendar month, which extended to the bonus vesting date, thereby offsetting the loan.

The court also granted summary judgment to Rieder on his counterclaim, awarding him damages for wrongful dismissal.