3 total
Employee awarded damages after discriminatory dismissal and failure to accommodate deafness.
The plaintiff sought default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action after the defendant was noted in default and unsuccessful in attempts to set aside that default.
The court accepted the uncontested evidence that the employer failed to accommodate the employee’s deafness and subjected the employee to humiliating treatment culminating in termination.
Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded 24 months’ pay in lieu of notice and damages for loss of benefits.
The court also awarded damages for discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and punitive damages due to the employer’s egregious conduct and failure to accommodate disability.
Total damages exceeded $109,000 plus interest and costs.
Ontario action stayed in favour of contractual Mexican forum.
The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal or a stay of a wrongful dismissal and breach of contract action.
The dispute arose from an employment contract containing a sole employer clause and a forum selection clause requiring disputes to be resolved exclusively in Mexico.
The court found that although Ontario technically had jurisdiction, the employment contract’s choice of forum clause and the existence of ongoing proceedings before Mexican labour authorities justified declining to exercise that jurisdiction.
Applying the principles governing enforcement of forum selection clauses, the court held the plaintiff failed to demonstrate strong cause to depart from the agreed forum.
The Ontario action was stayed pending the outcome of the Mexican proceedings.
Termination pay calculation includes outstanding company losses affecting earned commissions.
An employee sought a judicial interpretation of an employment contract following termination without cause, claiming additional severance based on commissions.
The dispute concerned whether the calculation of average annual commissions for termination pay should account for company losses incurred in the final fiscal quarters before termination.
The court held that the contract referred to "earned commissions" tied to net profits and losses rather than commissions actually paid.
Interpreting the contract in accordance with commercial reasonableness, the court concluded that outstanding company losses must be included when calculating average commissions for termination pay.
The employer had already paid the correct amount and owed no further compensation.
