David E. Greenwood

The plaintiff, a Vice President of Acquisitions and Asset Management and Chief Compliance Officer, was terminated by the defendant after three months less one day of employment.

The plaintiff claimed wrongful dismissal, arguing that the termination clause in the employment agreement was void and unenforceable as it violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The court found that the termination clause, including the probationary employment provision, was void and unenforceable because it purported to give the employer more expansive termination rights than those established in the ESA.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to reasonable notice upon termination and awarded three months' notice, resulting in damages of $44,644.46 for base salary, benefits, and reimbursement of professional examination fees.

The court rejected claims for bonus compensation, aggravated damages, and punitive damages.

ID Inc. brought a motion to quash part of an appeal by the Toronto Wholesale Produce Association (TWPA), arguing the appeal was out of time because the judgment for damages was "pronounced" earlier than the final judgment date.

The TWPA opposed and brought a cross-motion for an extension of time if necessary.

The Court of Appeal dismissed ID Inc.'s motion, finding that there was only a single judgment, not two, and therefore the appeal was not out of time.

The TWPA's cross-motion was dismissed as moot.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario reconsidered its prior decision in light of a Supreme Court of Canada remand order, which directed disposition in accordance with *Matthews v. Ocean Nutrition Canada Ltd.* The original appeal concerned whether a wrongfully dismissed employee was entitled to hold shares and receive share bonuses during the reasonable notice period, as determined by a motion judge.

The Court of Appeal had previously found against the employee.

Upon reconsideration, the court affirmed its earlier decision, holding that *Ocean Nutrition* applies to damages arising from a breach of an employment contract, whereas the employee's claim to shares and share bonuses arose from his rights as a shareholder under a Shareholders' Agreement, not as an employee.

The appellant, CIBC World Markets Inc., appealed a trial judgment that found it liable for trading losses incurred by the respondents, Montrose Hammond & Co. and The Raillery Fund LP, due to the negligence of Belzberg Technologies Inc.'s employees.

CIBC argued the trial judge erred in interpreting exclusion clauses in their contract and in finding Belzberg to be CIBC's apparent agent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's interpretation that the exclusion clauses did not apply to the circumstances and that Belzberg acted as CIBC's apparent agent, leading to the respondents' detriment.

An employee-owned engineering firm terminated a 31-year employee without cause and paid him for his shares based on the fair value 30 days after termination, as specified in the shareholders' agreement.

The employee sought damages for wrongful dismissal and claimed he was entitled to share value calculated at the end of the reasonable notice period (26 months) plus share bonuses accrued during that period.

The motion judge granted partial summary judgment in the employee's favour, relying on the principle that a wrongfully dismissed employee should be placed in the position they would have been in if lawfully terminated.

The appellate court reversed, holding that the employee's contractual rights under the shareholders' agreement are separate and distinct from his common law employment rights, and that the shareholders' agreement clearly triggered the share repurchase process upon termination of employment, not at the end of the notice period.

The appellant employer appealed and the respondent employees cross-appealed from a motion judge's orders awarding wrongful dismissal damages following the dismissal of the respondents without cause after the sale of part of the employer's retail business.

The appeal addressed whether the respondents failed to mitigate damages by refusing comparable employment with the purchaser, and whether damages for employment benefits should be reduced by pension benefits received.

The cross-appeal concerned the calculation of damages for lost Savings Plan contributions.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge did not err in determining the offered employment was not comparable and that pension benefits should not be deducted.

The court allowed the cross-appeal, finding the motion judge erred in calculating Savings Plan contributions at 3% rather than 6%.

The plaintiffs sued CIBC and Belzberg for breach of contract or negligence after a direct market access (DMA) system malfunctioned, causing significant error trades and the eventual shutdown of their hedge fund.

The court found CIBC prima facie liable, determining that Belzberg employees acted as CIBC's apparent agents when they negligently caused the malfunction.

The court rejected CIBC's broad contractual exclusion of liability for direct damages but upheld the exclusion for lost profits.

The plaintiffs were awarded direct trading losses, with no reduction for mitigation or contributory negligence, and punitive damages were denied.

Mr. Ivars Mikelsteins, a 57-year-old employee with 31 years of service, was terminated without cause from Morrison Hershfield Ltd. He brought a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal damages, including reasonable notice, benefits, share valuation increases, share bonuses, and a gross-up on share value.

The court determined a reasonable notice period of 26 months, awarded damages for base salary, bonus, and RRSP contributions, and 10% of base salary for lost benefits for the remaining notice period.

The court also found Mikelsteins entitled to damages for the increase in share value, share bonuses, and a gross-up, rejecting the employer's argument that the Shareholders' Agreement ousted common law entitlements.

The court adopted a partial summary judgment approach for mitigation, requiring monthly payments and allowing the employer to challenge mitigation efforts later.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the court determined damages and costs following a summary judgment on liability.

The plaintiffs sought compensation for 26 months' notice, including pension contributions, Savings Plan contributions, and loss of benefits.

The defendant argued for deductions based on an expert report indicating an increase in the commuted value of the plaintiffs' pensions due to early termination, and disputed benefit calculations.

The court rejected the defendant's argument for pension value deductions, applying the principles from *IBM Canada Limited v. Waterman* that pension benefits are a form of retirement savings, not an indemnity for wage loss, and should not be deducted.

It also rejected the plaintiffs' claim for notional pension contributions, as no actual pension loss was proven.

For the Savings Plan, the court awarded 3% contributions throughout the notice period, finding that the plaintiffs should not be penalized for a plan change they could not elect to avoid due to termination.

For lost benefits, the court awarded 8% of base salary, based on the defendant's own evidence and the principle that retirement benefits do not offset lost employment benefits.

The plaintiffs were awarded damages of $328,505.00 and $260,640.60 respectively, plus pre-judgment interest, and costs of $75,000.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of a fresh as amended statement of claim in an employment-related action seeking damages for breach of contract, wrongful dismissal, misrepresentation, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment.

The court held that the pleading failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against an individual corporate officer because it did not plead material facts showing independent misconduct separate from the corporation.

The court struck the claims against the individual defendant and dismissed the action as against him.

However, the court found sufficient pleaded facts to support the allegation that two corporate defendants could be treated as common employers.

The claim for unjust enrichment was also struck for failure to plead a tangible benefit retained by the defendants.

The defendants appealed a master's order dismissing their motions for security for costs against corporate plaintiffs who had ceased operations and lacked assets in Ontario.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs were not impecunious because the principals had personal assets, including an unencumbered home and retirement savings.

The court held that the master did not err in concluding the plaintiffs were genuinely impecunious and that requiring security would force abandonment of the claim.

The court accepted that the principals' assets were effectively constrained by debts, potential tax liabilities, and the need to fund the litigation.

Because the claim was not plainly devoid of merit, the master properly exercised discretion to refuse security for costs.

The plaintiff sought an interim injunction and preservation order against former employees who started a competing realty tax business, alleging breach of non-competition and non-solicitation agreements.

The court found a serious issue to be tried but concluded the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as any lost sales or market share could be compensated in damages.

The balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

The court dismissed the motion for an interim injunction and forensic inspection but ordered the defendants to preserve any documents and devices belonging to the plaintiff.

The defendants brought parallel motions for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure against corporate and partnership plaintiffs who alleged losses exceeding $1,000,000 arising from a trading incident involving brokerage services and trading software.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award.

The court reviewed the financial circumstances of the plaintiffs and their principals and considered whether they could reasonably post security or obtain a letter of credit.

Finding that ordering security would effectively force abandonment of a claim that was not plainly devoid of merit, and that the plaintiffs were effectively impecunious, the court declined to require security for costs.

The motions were dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiffs.