Graham Jones

The parties entered into a talent acquisition agreement where the defendant agreed to hire a team of employees from the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought an action for breach of contract, claiming the defendant failed to make two subsequent payments and incurred termination expenses after the defendant terminated several of the hired employees without cause.

Both parties moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the action, finding that the plain wording of the agreement conditioned the subsequent payments on the retention of the employees.

The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that the defendant breached its duty of good faith, noting the terminations were a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiff employee was temporarily laid off by the defendant employer.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment claiming constructive dismissal, arguing the employment contract did not permit temporary layoffs.

The employer argued the layoff complied with the Employment Standards Act.

The court held that a temporary layoff without express or implied contractual authority constitutes constructive dismissal, rejecting the argument that the ESA displaces the common law requirement.

The plaintiff was awarded statutory notice and severance pay.

However, the court capped common law damages at five months because the plaintiff failed to mitigate by refusing a recall to work, and these damages were fully offset by statutory payments and new employment income.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding it $1.7 million in damages for the respondent's breach of an amalgamation agreement involving a reverse take-over.

The appellant argued damages should have been assessed at a later date using a share value approach or by applying a multiplier to the respondent's asset value, which would have yielded over $8 million.

The respondent cross-appealed the 10% contingency discount and the 10% pre-judgment interest rate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the trial judge correctly assessed damages at the date of breach using the best available evidence (an asset valuation) because no market existed for the shares at that time, and properly exercised his discretion regarding contingencies and interest.