Daria A. Strachan

The appellant appealed from a motion judge's order striking his claim against Transport Canada and Francois Collins under Rule 21.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure without leave to amend.

The motion judge found that the claim, concerning alleged misrepresentations made by the employer to an insurer, related to the terms and conditions of employment and was therefore grievable under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, placing it outside the court's jurisdiction.

The appellant argued he was no longer an employee, the grievance procedure was unavailable, and procedural fairness was denied.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's jurisdictional analysis or refusal to grant leave to amend.

This costs endorsement addresses the appropriate amount of costs payable by the defendant to the plaintiff following a wrongful dismissal action under the simplified procedure.

The court reviews the parties’ conduct, the complexity of the case, the offers to settle, and the applicable rules, ultimately awarding the plaintiff the maximum costs permitted under Rule 76.12.1, plus reasonable disbursements, due to the defendant’s unreasonable settlement position and litigation conduct.

The court considered a wrongful dismissal claim by Jesse Lachapelle against St. Laurent Automotive Group Inc. following his layoff during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the plaintiff was constructively dismissed on March 24, 2020, and was entitled to seven months’ reasonable notice, with credit for inducement and the impact of the pandemic on employment prospects.

The court rejected the employer’s arguments regarding force majeure and found that the plaintiff was not required to accept substantially altered terms of employment.

The plaintiff was not entitled to aggravated, bad faith, or punitive damages, as the employer’s conduct was not malicious or high-handed.

The court calculated damages based on the plaintiff’s actual earnings and benefits, and dismissed the claim for a construction retention bonus.

This costs endorsement addresses the quantum of costs following the Attorney General of Canada's successful motion to strike the plaintiff's claim.

The court considered the reasonableness of the hours and rates claimed, the complexity and importance of the issues, and the conduct of the parties.

The court found the hours claimed by the Attorney General to be excessive and awarded partial indemnity costs, fixing the amount at $8,468.

The plaintiff, a former federal public service pilot, brought an action against his former employer, Transport Canada, his supervisor, and Sun Life for denial of long-term disability benefits and alleged misrepresentations by the employer to the insurer.

The Attorney General of Canada moved to dismiss the action against the employer defendants, arguing the court's jurisdiction was ousted by s. 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act.

The court found that the essential character of the dispute related to the employer's conduct and misrepresentations, which were grievable under s. 208 of the Act.

The court stayed the action against the employer defendants, concluding it lacked jurisdiction.

The plaintiff corporation brought a motion for the recovery of two vehicles from the defendant, its former general manager.

The defendant had failed to return the vehicles despite a previous interlocutory injunction order.

The court found that the plaintiff had satisfied all requirements under Rule 44 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the recovery of personal property.

The defendant's arguments, including alleged shareholder consent, wrongful termination claims, and challenges to corporate directorship changes, were rejected as insufficient to justify retaining the vehicles.

The court ordered the immediate return of the vehicles and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment in his wrongful dismissal action against his former employers after 22 years of service.

The court determined the reasonable notice period, bonus entitlement, benefits compensation, and vacation pay, and assessed the plaintiff's mitigation efforts.

The court found a 24-month notice period appropriate, awarded bonuses based on actual corporate performance during the notice period, and set a value for lost benefits.

It clarified that discretionary bonuses, while compensable as part of damages, do not constitute "wages" for statutory vacation pay purposes.

The court dismissed the defendants' argument regarding the plaintiff's failure to mitigate, finding his efforts reasonable.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to amend its Amended Amended Statement of Claim to include new allegations of fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, deceit, and punitive damages, claiming these were recently discovered.

The defendant opposed, arguing the amendments constituted a new cause of action barred by the Limitations Act and that they would suffer non-compensable prejudice due to purged records.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to amend, finding that leave under Rule 48.04(1) was not required for general amendments under Rule 26.01, and that the issues of discoverability and alleged prejudice from purged records were best determined by the trial judge.