David Vaughan

The court found that William Williamson was wrongfully dismissed by Brandt Tractor Inc. after 18 years of service.

The employer failed to prove just cause for dismissal, relying on hearsay evidence regarding a customer complaint.

The court awarded damages based on a 17-month notice period and dismissed the claim for punitive damages, finding no egregious conduct beyond the statutory breach.

The appellant, Binh Viet Pham, appealed the summary dismissal of his wrongful dismissal claim, which arose from a temporary layoff by the respondent, Qualified Metal Fabricators Ltd. The motion judge erred by proceeding with summary judgment despite the appellant's objection and by misapplying legal principles regarding implied terms for layoffs and condonation.

The Court of Appeal found genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly concerning whether an implied term permitting layoffs existed and whether the appellant condoned the layoff.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment set aside, and the matter remitted for trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in her wrongful dismissal claim against the defendant hospital.

The central issue was whether the termination clause in her employment agreement was enforceable.

The court found that several 'for cause' provisions in the agreement violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) by falling short of the narrow 'wilful misconduct' exemption.

Applying Waksdale, the court held that these illegal provisions rendered the entire termination clause unenforceable, despite 'saving' language in the contract.

The plaintiff was awarded 4.5 months of reasonable notice under common law.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action sought to examine for discovery the co-worker whose sexual harassment complaint led to his termination.

The defendant hospital moved under Rule 31.03(2) to substitute a human resources manager as its discovery representative, or alternatively, for the examination to proceed by written questions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the co-worker had direct knowledge of the critical issue of whether the harassment occurred, and the defendant failed to show that examining the co-worker would be oppressive or that the plaintiff's choice should be displaced.

The defendant employer appealed a Small Claims Court judgment for wrongful dismissal.

The appeal grounds were that the Deputy Judge erred in finding the employment contract contracted out of ESA obligations for a construction employee not entitled to statutory notice, and failed to provide adequate reasons.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the termination clause void for potentially violating the ESA by contracting out of benefits and severance pay, even if those specific entitlements did not apply at the time of termination or if the employee's role changed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal damages, arguing the termination clause in his employment contract was unenforceable.

The court found that while provisions regarding health benefits and termination for cause were valid, the clause was ambiguous as to whether it excluded severance pay when providing termination pay.

Due to this ambiguity, the termination clause was held invalid.

The plaintiff was awarded common law damages for the period between his termination and when he mitigated his damages by finding new employment.

The appellant employer appealed a wrongful dismissal judgment awarding the respondent damages based on a 17-month notice period.

The employer argued the respondent failed to mitigate by refusing an offer of re-employment at approximately 20% lower salary.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that an employee is not obliged to accept re-employment that risks waiver of the wrongful dismissal claim without clear confirmation that acceptance would be without prejudice to the original claim.