D. Matson

The plaintiff and defendant, both financial advisors, entered into a partnership agreement.

The defendant's licence was later suspended for misconduct.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for return of moneys, and the defendant counterclaimed.

The plaintiff then issued a third party claim for contribution and indemnity against their former employers, alleging they knew of the defendant's misconduct.

The third parties moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred under s. 18 of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court granted the motion, holding that s. 18 creates an absolute two-year limitation period for contribution and indemnity claims that is not subject to discoverability principles.

Even if discoverability applied, the plaintiff had discovered the claim before the limitation period expired.

An employee alleged disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and wrongful dismissal after being placed on leave following repetitive strain injuries and later receiving a termination letter.

The court held the employer had accommodated the employee to the point of undue hardship before placing him on leave and did not breach the duty to accommodate during the subsequent leave period because the employee failed to provide medical information supporting a return to work.

However, the employer’s January 2013 termination constituted wrongful dismissal and was influenced in part by the employee’s disability.

The court awarded 15 months’ pay in lieu of notice but deducted workers’ compensation benefits received during the notice period.

Additional damages were awarded for discrimination arising from the termination itself.