David Vaughan

The appellant employer appealed a judgment awarding the respondent damages for wrongful dismissal, arguing the trial judge erred in finding no just cause for dismissal and no failure to mitigate.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on just cause, noting the lack of admissible evidence regarding a culminating customer complaint.

The Court also upheld the finding that the respondent did not fail to mitigate, as the appellant failed to prove comparable employment was available.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the trial judge erred by refusing to deduct income the respondent earned in a lower-paying position during the notice period.

The damages award was reduced by the $32,881.43 earned in mitigation.

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 appellant employer appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent employee damages for wrongful dismissal.

The employer argued the termination clause was valid because the employee, as a construction worker, was exempt from statutory notice under the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an employment contract cannot contract out of protected employment standards, even if those standards do not currently apply to the employee.

The termination clause was void because it potentially violated the ESA by denying benefits and severance pay if the employee's position or the employer's size 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.

The defendant employer appealed a summary judgment awarding the plaintiff employee eight months' pay in lieu of notice for wrongful dismissal.

The motion judge had found the termination clause in the employment contract invalid for violating the Employment Standards Act by excluding benefits during the notice period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the motion judge's interpretation of the contract, his assessment of the plaintiff's mitigation efforts, or his costs award.

The plaintiff's cross-appeal seeking a longer notice period based on prior service with a predecessor employer was also dismissed.