David Hager

The plaintiffs brought two motions in a shareholder dispute.

The first motion sought to dismiss the action against certain bankrupt corporate defendants and their counterclaim, which was granted on consent with prejudice and without costs.

The second motion sought leave to amend the statement of claim against the remaining defendants to add an oppression remedy claim and further particulars.

The remaining defendants opposed the amendments, arguing the oppression claim was untenable and that some claims were derivative in nature.

The court granted leave to amend, finding that the proposed amendments were not doomed to fail and that an oppression claim could co-exist with breach of contract and derivative claims.

The plaintiffs were awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,000.

The plaintiff, a mechanical engineer with 12 years of service, was laid off by the defendant.

He sued for constructive dismissal, seeking 8 weeks' salary in lieu of notice as per his employment contract, which referenced the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA).

The defendant argued that the lay-off was temporary under the ESA and did not trigger termination pay, and that the plaintiff failed to resign within a reasonable period after the constructive dismissal as required by the ESA.

The court found that the employment contract, containing an "entire agreement" clause, displaced the ESA's provisions regarding temporary lay-offs and resignation requirements for constructive dismissal, except for the expressly incorporated notice period.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for 8 weeks' salary in lieu of notice.

The plaintiff brought a motion regarding discovery issues in a constructive dismissal action.

The primary remaining issue was whether the plaintiff and the third party, whose interests were aligned against the defendant, should be permitted to review each other's examination for discovery transcripts before being examined themselves.

The court found a real possibility of collusion and tailoring of evidence given their close relationship and aligned pleadings.

The court ordered that the plaintiff and third party be excluded from knowing each other's discovery evidence until both examinations were completed.

The defendant employer appealed a master's decision dismissing its motion for a further and better affidavit of documents in a wrongful dismissal action.

The employer sought production of the plaintiff employee’s personal email messages and cell phone records to support an after-acquired cause defence alleging she conducted real estate business during working hours.

The court held that the master correctly applied the proportionality principle under Rule 29.2.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the requested production would require review of thousands of emails and impose disproportionate time and cost relative to the issues in dispute.

The court also noted the marginal relevance of personal email records to alleged misuse of the employer’s email system.

The appeal was dismissed.