D. Barry Prentice

The appellant, Stericycle ULC, appealed an order dismissing its application for a declaration that it, rather than Daniels Sharpsmart Canada Limited, was the primary supplier for Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) under a public tendering process.

Stericycle argued that the application judge erred in contract interpretation, allowing impermissible bid repair, and failing to properly apply the duty of good faith.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's interpretation of the "Six Month Provision" or the contract start date.

The court also found no breach of the duty of good faith or honest performance by HealthPRO or PHSA, as their actions were consistent with the contract's purpose and Stericycle's reasonable expectations.

The plaintiffs were successful in their wrongful dismissal actions against the defendant and sought full indemnity costs capped at $50,000 each under Rule 76.12.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendant argued the costs claimed were disproportionate and excessive.

The court agreed with the defendant, finding the cases were simple, materially identical, and handled by common counsel, which should have resulted in substantial efficiencies.

The court rejected the claim for full indemnity costs and awarded a total of $50,000 inclusive of HST for both claims combined, plus disbursements, resulting in $26,117.08 for each plaintiff.

The plaintiffs, two long-term employees, were laid off by the defendant employer in early 2020 due to supply chain disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in China.

The plaintiffs treated the lay-offs as constructive dismissals and brought summary judgment motions for wrongful dismissal.

The court found that the employer did not have an implied right to lay off the employees, and even if it did, the lay-offs exceeded 35 weeks, resulting in deemed terminations under the Employment Standards Act.

The court awarded both plaintiffs 22 months of reasonable notice.

The appellant, a 69-year-old legal assistant, was terminated without cause after 15 years of service.

A motions judge awarded her a 12-month notice period, subject to a 10% contingency reduction for the final two months.

The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court, seeking a 24-month notice period and arguing the motions judge erred in applying the Bardal factors and the contingency reduction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in principle, no unreasonable findings of fact, and that the notice period fell within an acceptable range.

The applicant, an incumbent biomedical waste disposal provider, challenged the award of a new primary supplier contract to a competitor.

The applicant alleged that the respondents engaged in bid repair and breached their duty of fairness by allowing the competitor to delay the implementation of services and assisting them with regulatory approvals post-award.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the duty of fairness to unsuccessful bidders ended once the contract was awarded, and that the post-award communications were operational in nature and did not constitute bid repair.

The court also rejected the argument that the respondents had irrevocably elected the applicant as the primary supplier by utilizing their services during the transition period.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule an appeal from a summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal case.

The court directed that the appeal be heard by a three-judge panel via Zoom and set out a timetable and procedural requirements for the filing of electronic materials, factums, and compendiums.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 31.03(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to examine a different corporate representative for discovery rather than the employee selected by the plaintiff.

The dispute arose in the context of a family and corporate conflict involving claims for wrongful dismissal and oppression under the Business Corporations Act.

The court held that the examining party has a prima facie right to choose the corporate representative to be examined, subject only to limited judicial intervention where the selection is inappropriate or oppressive.

The defendants failed to demonstrate that the chosen employee lacked sufficient knowledge, could not inform himself, or that the examination would be unduly oppressive.

The motion to substitute the witness was dismissed and costs were awarded against the moving parties.

The appellants, commissioned sales representatives, were presented with a new employment contract by their employer, LICC, which reduced commissions and introduced minimum production levels.

When the appellants refused to sign the new agreement, LICC terminated their employment.

The trial judge dismissed their wrongful dismissal action, finding they breached their contract by refusing to acknowledge LICC's managerial authority to change the commission plan.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellants were employees, not independent contractors, and were entitled to reasonable notice of termination.

The Court found that the appellants had no obligation to accept the new agreement or acknowledge the employer's right to make unilateral changes, and their refusal did not constitute just cause for dismissal.

The Court also held that the employer failed to meet its burden of proving the appellants failed to mitigate their damages.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee damages for wrongful dismissal, specifically challenging the inclusion of bonus, profit sharing, and vacation pay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to treat the bonus and profit sharing as deferred compensation, given they formed a substantial portion of the employee's compensation and he was told they would be treated as such upon hiring.

The award for one week's vacation pay was also upheld.

The appellants appealed an order denying an injunction to prevent the sale of a property.

The parties had agreed on the form of the order, which included a paragraph that appeared to be a final determination on the authority of the majority to sell the property.

The Court of Appeal noted that the motion judge's reasons did not amount to a final determination of this issue, and counsel agreed it remained a live issue for trial.

The Court allowed the appeal to the extent of striking out the paragraph that appeared to be a final order, while maintaining the denial of the injunction.

Costs of $3,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant employer challenged a wrongful dismissal award limited to quantum, arguing the trial judge erred on reasonable notice, stock option damages, and mitigation.

The majority held the trial judge effectively fixed a nine-and-one-half-month notice period, properly interpreted the stock option plan as contemplating lawful termination, and did not err by excluding mining claims staked during the notice period from the mitigation calculation.

The court found no basis to interfere with the damages assessment for lost stock option value.

A dissent would have allowed the appeal and dismissed the action.