Daniel Hunter

The plaintiff, a 62-year-old managerial employee with 38 years of service, was terminated without cause shortly after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

He brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for wrongful dismissal, including a 30-month notice period, lost Restricted Stock Units (RSUs), and bonuses.

The court granted summary judgment, awarding a 27-month notice period due to exceptional circumstances, including his age, lengthy service, specialized skills, and the economic impact of the pandemic.

The court also awarded damages for RSUs that would have vested during the notice period, finding the termination provisions did not unambiguously oust his common law entitlements, but dismissed the claim for discretionary bonuses.

Following a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action where the plaintiff recovered $17,587.11, both parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought $35,000 in partial indemnity costs, while the defendant sought $17,387.88 in costs thrown away.

The court noted that both parties had advanced and subsequently abandoned serious, unsubstantiated allegations during the litigation.

Given the conduct of both parties and the plaintiff's recovery falling within the Small Claims Court monetary jurisdiction, the court ordered no costs to either party.

The plaintiff, a dental hygienist, was dismissed without cause after less than six months of employment.

She brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal damages.

The defendant employer alleged she had fabricated evidence of her job search to prove mitigation.

The court found the employer failed to prove the mitigation fraud allegation.

Applying the Waksdale rule, the court held the employment contract's termination clause was void because its 'for cause' provision violated the Employment Standards Act.

The court awarded a three-month notice period and declined to deduct the plaintiff's CERB payments from the damages award.

The plaintiff commenced an action for constructive dismissal against her former employer.

The defendants moved to stay the action under Rule 21.01(3) and s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, relying on an arbitration clause in the plaintiff's employment agreement.

The plaintiff argued the arbitration clause was invalid, unconscionable, and contracted out of minimum employment standards.

Applying the competence-competence principle, the court held that the arbitral tribunal must first determine the validity of the arbitration clause.

The action was stayed pending the arbitrator's determination of the jurisdictional challenge.