Edward J. O’Dwyer

Two employees of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) employed as Mobile Investment Consultants were terminated without cause due to a restructuring.

They sued for wrongful dismissal, claiming entitlement to damages in lieu of reasonable notice under common law.

The central issue was whether the termination provision in their employment contracts was enforceable or violated the Canada Labour Code.

The court found the termination provision unenforceable because the "For Cause" provision defined cause more broadly than the statutory definition of "just cause" under the Canada Labour Code, and the "Without Cause" provision's language permitting termination "at any time" was contrary to the statutory framework.

The court determined reasonable notice periods of seven months for one plaintiff and twelve months for the other, and awarded damages for salary, commissions, bonuses, and benefits during those periods.

The plaintiff, a former Senior Financial Services Representative at CIBC, brought an action for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for cause.

The employer alleged that the plaintiff repeatedly breached its Code of Conduct and policies, including failing to review overdraft reports, pulling credit bureau records without signed consent, and altering signed mortgage payout statements.

The court applied the contextual approach to just cause and found that the plaintiff's cumulative and persistent breaches of the employer's policies, despite previous warnings, struck at the heart of the employment relationship.

The action was dismissed.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal where the plaintiff was awarded $149,662.50 in damages, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff sought full indemnity costs or, alternatively, partial indemnity to the date of a Rule 49 offer and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The court rejected full indemnity costs as the defendant's conduct in the litigation was not reprehensible.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court awarded the plaintiff costs on a blended scale totalling $38,156.25 inclusive of disbursements and HST, noting the plaintiff's efficient use of a single senior lawyer compared to the defendant's heavily staffed file.

The defendant employer moved for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action and the plaintiff employee brought a cross-motion for summary judgment.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, fixed reasonable notice at 24 months for a 28-year retail management employee, and rejected the employer’s mitigation defence despite a delayed job search, given the pandemic, the employee’s depression, and extensive later applications.

The court further held that the employer breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing in the manner of dismissal by escorting the employee out, presenting a misleading post-termination offer, failing to comply with statutory lump-sum payment obligations, and issuing an untimely and inaccurate record of employment.

Damages were awarded for notice, replacement benefits, pension contributions, moral damages, and punitive damages.

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiff's action for want of jurisdiction, the defendants sought their costs.

The plaintiff argued she should not pay costs because she had offered to discontinue the action and the defendants demanded an overly broad release.

The court awarded the Toronto Parking Authority $20,000 in partial indemnity costs.

However, the court declined to award costs to the individual defendant, finding that doing so would bring the administration of justice into disrepute given his reprehensible conduct that gave rise to the action.

The plaintiff, a unionized employee, brought a tort action against her employer (Toronto Parking Authority) and a co-worker (Vito Ditta) for damages arising from alleged workplace sexual assault and harassment.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction as the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator under section 48 of the Labour Relations Act.

The court found that the essential character of the dispute concerned workplace violence and harassment, which was covered by the collective agreement and the employer's workplace policies.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's arguments regarding a Charter section 15 violation and a remedial gap, concluding that the dispute was exclusively arbitrable.