David Alan Whitten

The appellant, Mounir Nader, appealed the dismissal of his claim for damages related to the early termination of his secondment agreement with Ontario Health and University Health Network (UHN).

He sought payment for the remaining term of the secondment, 12 months' severance, and a discretionary annual performance-based bonus.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the secondment agreement was not an employment agreement and that the appellant was only entitled to 12 months' severance under his employment agreement, not additional payment for the secondment term.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred in denying the performance-based bonus, concluding it was an integral part of compensation and should be awarded for the severance period.

Farah Rahman appealed a summary judgment dismissing her wrongful dismissal action.

The motion judge had found her employment contracts' termination provisions valid under the ESA and that only one entity, CDAI, was her employer.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the "just cause" termination provision in the employment contract violated the ESA by allowing termination without notice for conduct less than "wilful misconduct" rendering all termination provisions void.

The Court also found that the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors in determining the employer, concluding that the corporate respondents were common employers due to their high level of integration and control over Ms. Rahman.

The case was remitted to the Superior Court for damages quantification.

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant hospital network and subsequently seconded to a provincial health agency.

The secondment was terminated early, and the plaintiff's employment was terminated without cause.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the secondment agreement was a fixed-term employment contract entitling him to compensation for the balance of the term, plus 12 months' severance under his original employment agreement.

The court dismissed this claim, finding the secondment agreement was not an employment contract and the plaintiff remained an employee of the hospital network subject to the 12-month termination provision.

The court awarded the plaintiff a $5,000 health care spending account but dismissed his claim for a performance bonus.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action, arguing that the termination provisions in her employment agreement violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) and were therefore void.

The court found that the plaintiff, a sophisticated employee who received independent legal advice, entered into an agreement that explicitly incorporated ESA minimums and provided greater benefits in certain circumstances.

The court held that the 'just cause' provision did not contravene the ESA and dismissed the action against the parent and affiliate companies, finding no joint employer relationship.

The termination provisions were upheld as valid.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding damages for wrongful termination of a promotional contract.

The trial judge found that the contract required the respondent to promote the appellant's product, not serve as a brand ambassador, and that the morals clause was not violated by the private transmission of nude photographs within an intimate relationship, particularly where the act occurred before the contract was executed.

The trial judge awarded $162,500 in damages representing outstanding periodic payments over the four-year contract term.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to strike several paragraphs from an affidavit filed by the respondent in an underlying application for unpaid wages.

The impugned paragraphs alleged that the applicant was terminated for cause due to sexual harassment and insubordination.

The court found that because the underlying application sought only unpaid wages earned prior to termination and not damages for wrongful dismissal, the allegations regarding cause for termination were clearly irrelevant and scandalous.

The court granted the motion and struck the paragraphs pursuant to Rules 25.11, 38.12, and 39.01(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, a professional hockey player, sued the defendant for wrongful termination of a promotional contract.

The defendant had terminated the agreement citing the plaintiff's demotion to a minor league team and the circulation of nude photographs of the plaintiff on the internet.

The court found that the defendant was not entitled to rescind the contract as it had received much of what it bargained for, and the morals clause did not apply retrospectively to the private sharing of intimate photos.

The plaintiff was awarded $162,500 in damages for the remainder of the contract term and its renewal.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claims against all defendants except one corporate entity, relying on an 'Entire Agreement' clause in an independent contractor agreement.

The court treated the motion as one under Rule 21.01(1)(b) rather than Rule 25.11.

The court found that the plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts to support a reasonable cause of action against the remaining corporate defendants based on the common employer doctrine.

The motion to strike the claims against the four corporate defendants was dismissed, while the claims against the personal defendant and one paragraph of the statement of claim were struck on consent.

The plaintiff, a 63-year-old Vice-President of Finance with 17 years of service, brought a motion for summary judgment alleging constructive dismissal after his employer unilaterally imposed a 40 percent salary reduction due to financial difficulties.

The employer argued the reduction was temporary and later alleged just cause for termination.

The court found the salary reduction constituted a constructive dismissal and rejected the after-the-fact allegations of cause.

The plaintiff was awarded 23.75 months' salary in lieu of reasonable notice, reflecting a 24-month notice period reduced by a small contingency factor for mitigation.

The appellant's employment was terminated at age 52.

He sought a declaration that he was entitled to an unreduced pension at age 62 under his former employer's registered pension plan and executive supplementary pension agreement.

The motion judge dismissed his claim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the appellant did not qualify for early retirement under the plan because he was not between the ages of 55 and 65 when his employment ended.

The supplementary agreement was intended to provide benefits in excess of the plan, not to create a new substantive right at odds with the plan's conditions for entitlement.

The appellant appealed a judgment finding no case for equitable set-off and refusing a stay of execution.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that although the motion judge erred in finding no basis for piercing the corporate veil, he correctly concluded there was no case for equitable set-off because the debt was incurred to a different company prior to a merger.

The court also upheld the refusal to grant a stay of execution due to the lack of connection between the claims.