Daniel Asher Lublin

The plaintiff, a long-term senior employee, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for wrongful dismissal, including a 24-month notice period, bonus, benefits, and unpaid vacation pay.

The defendant employer argued for a shorter notice period and that the plaintiff failed to mitigate losses.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the plaintiff was entitled to a 24-month notice period, full bonus, benefits, and a portion of the claimed unpaid vacation pay, rejecting the employer's mitigation defence and bonus exclusion clauses.

This endorsement addresses costs following a wrongful dismissal trial where the plaintiff, Melvin Yee, was largely successful in his claim for damages but unsuccessful in his claim for bad faith damages.

The defendant, Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC), failed to disclose a critical employment contract until late in the proceedings, causing unnecessary litigation.

The court found HBC's conduct "worthy of sanction" under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Despite the plaintiff's divided success and the defendant's offers to settle, the court awarded the plaintiff reduced substantial indemnity costs, emphasizing that the defendant's conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding.

This supplementary endorsement addresses the costs of a failed mediation and an urgent motion brought by the plaintiff to compel a representative's attendance at discovery.

The court declined to award costs for the mediation, finding no evidence of bad faith despite the defendant's alleged reluctance to engage in settlement discussions.

For the motion, where the plaintiff was largely successful in securing the discovery order, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff, fixed at $6,300.00, after a one-third reduction for lack of complete success (specifically, the failed mediation costs).

The decision reiterates that elevated costs require a clear finding of reprehensible conduct, which was not present.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion seeking an order to compel Aziz Pirani, a current employee of the defendant corporation, to attend an examination for discovery as the defendant's representative.

The urgency arose from Mr. Pirani's unclear impending departure from the defendant's employment, which would alter the plaintiff's prima facie right to choose the witness.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing lack of urgency and the inappropriateness of examining a departing employee.

The court found the matter urgent and granted the plaintiff's motion, affirming the plaintiff's right to select the corporate representative for discovery when the individual remains an employee and their departure date is uncertain.

The plaintiff, Hugo Raposo, brought a motion for summary judgment in his wrongful dismissal action against the defendant, CA Canada Company.

The central issue was the enforceability of the termination provisions in the employment agreement and whether they displaced the common law presumption of reasonable notice.

The court found that the termination provisions in the offer letter and employment agreement were neither contradictory nor ambiguous, and effectively rebutted the presumption of common law reasonable notice.

Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, though the plaintiff was awarded outstanding vacation pay.

An employee was terminated after eight years and four months of employment when her employer sold its assets.

The employment agreement contained a termination clause providing two weeks' notice per year of employment or pay in lieu thereof, stated to be inclusive of all statutory entitlements under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The employer paid the employee thirteen weeks' working notice plus a lump sum equivalent to eight weeks' pay, and made benefit contributions during the notice period.

The employee sought damages equivalent to twelve months' notice, arguing the termination clause was unenforceable.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the clause enforceable but determining that if wrong, reasonable notice would be nine months.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the termination clause unenforceable because it excluded the employer's statutory obligation to contribute to the employee's benefit plans during the notice period and did not clearly satisfy the employer's statutory obligation to pay severance pay.

The employee brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that a termination clause in his employment agreement was void for contracting out of minimum standards under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The dispute centered on a provision stating that bonuses would not be included in termination pay calculations except as otherwise agreed or required by statute.

The employee argued the clause unlawfully waived ESA rights contrary to s. 5(1).

The court held the provision, read harmoniously with the clause limiting termination entitlements to ESA minimums, did not contract out of the statute and simply confirmed bonuses would be included where required by law or later agreement.

The motion was dismissed and the action was summarily dismissed.

The defendant employer brought a motion to strike portions of an amended statement of claim in a wrongful dismissal action under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The impugned pleadings related to claims for aggravated damages ("Keays damages") and punitive damages based on alleged bad faith in the manner of dismissal and alleged reprisals for whistleblowing concerning marketing practices.

The court held that it was not plain and obvious that the allegations failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, emphasizing that damages for mental distress and punitive damages may arise from bad faith conduct in dismissal even where termination is without cause.

However, several paragraphs were struck for being unclear and unintelligible, with leave granted to replead them in plain language.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of an action alleging breach of an employment contract, breach of fiduciary duty, wrongful resignation, and intentional interference with economic relations after a senior employee left to join a competitor.

The court found that the record contained extensive contested evidence, numerous factual disputes, and significant credibility issues relating to the scope of contractual obligations, alleged non-solicitation duties, and the conduct of the parties after resignation.

Applying the principles governing summary judgment, the court concluded that the issues required a full trial to properly assess the evidence and competing theories of liability.

The motion was therefore dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the responding party.