Who is Craig R. Lawrence?

Craig R. Lawrence is an Ontario lawyer with 3 court cases on record from 2015 to 2017.

What courts has Craig R. Lawrence appeared in?

Craig R. Lawrence has appeared in Superior Court of Justice, Court of Appeal, with most appearances at the Superior Court of Justice.

How many cases has Craig R. Lawrence handled?

Craig R. Lawrence has 3 cases on record from 2015 to 2017.

What judges has Craig R. Lawrence appeared before?

Craig R. Lawrence has most frequently appeared before Justice James F. Diamond, Justice Peter D. Lauwers, Justice C. William Hourigan.

Craig R. Lawrence

3 total

Roy Fillmore v. Hercules SLR Inc., 2017 ONCA 280

The appellant employer appealed a wrongful dismissal judgment awarding the respondent damages based on a 17-month notice period.

The employer argued the respondent failed to mitigate by refusing an offer of re-employment at approximately 20% lower salary.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that an employee is not obliged to accept re-employment that risks waiver of the wrongful dismissal claim without clear confirmation that acceptance would be without prejudice to the original claim.

ONCAApr 4, 2017

Applicant Counsel

Fillmore v Hercules SLR Inc., 2016 ONSC 4686

The plaintiff, Roy Fillmore, was terminated from his employment after 19 years and 3 months and commenced an action for wrongful dismissal.

Both parties agreed to proceed by way of a motion for summary judgment to determine two issues: the amount of common law reasonable notice and whether the plaintiff's damages should be reduced due to an alleged failure to mitigate.

The court determined a reasonable notice period of 17 months.

It also found that the plaintiff did not fail to mitigate by refusing a demotion to a lower-paying, permanent position with the same employer, as this was not an offer to work through the notice period and could have prejudiced his rights.

SCJJul 20, 2016

Respondent Counsel

Rodd v. Peterborough Police Services Board, 2015 ONSC 65331

Police chiefs brought an application under s. 50 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 to enforce arbitration awards ordering a police services board to pay contractual entitlements following the dissolution of a regional police service.

The respondent argued the Arbitration Act did not apply because the arbitration was conducted pursuant to the Police Services Act and that enforcement should be stayed due to a pending judicial review application.

The court held that disputes over remuneration and working conditions of a chief and deputy chief fall outside Part VIII of the Police Services Act, meaning the statutory exclusion of the Arbitration Act did not apply.

Because none of the statutory grounds in s. 50(3) for refusing enforcement were present, the court was required to enforce the awards.

Judgment was therefore granted enforcing the arbitral awards.

Respondent Counsel