Greg McGinnis

The applicant sought a review of a motion judge's decision that dismissed her motion to extend the time to perfect her motion for leave to appeal from a Divisional Court order.

The Divisional Court had dismissed her application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision, noting unacceptable delay and lack of merit in the proposed appeal, as the underlying Human Rights Tribunal decision was fact-based and the Divisional Court found no question of law warranting intervention.

The review motion was dismissed.

The applicant sought to bring an application for judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision three years and eight months after it was released.

The Tribunal had previously ruled that the applicant's civil action against his employer was barred by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court applied the prior regime for judicial review delay, finding the applicant's explanations for the delay insufficient and concluding that prejudice to the respondents was presumed.

The motion to proceed with the application was dismissed for delay.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment in his wrongful dismissal action against his former employers after 22 years of service.

The court determined the reasonable notice period, bonus entitlement, benefits compensation, and vacation pay, and assessed the plaintiff's mitigation efforts.

The court found a 24-month notice period appropriate, awarded bonuses based on actual corporate performance during the notice period, and set a value for lost benefits.

It clarified that discretionary bonuses, while compensable as part of damages, do not constitute "wages" for statutory vacation pay purposes.

The court dismissed the defendants' argument regarding the plaintiff's failure to mitigate, finding his efforts reasonable.

The appellants (defendants at trial) appealed a judgment that awarded damages to the respondent (plaintiff at trial) for breach of a fixed-term independent contractor agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the contract was clear and unambiguous, including the 72-month fixed term and the absence of a termination clause.

However, the Court found that the trial judge erred in holding that independent contractors do not have a duty to mitigate damages, distinguishing them from employees in fixed-term contracts.

Despite this error, the appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to meet their burden of proving that the respondent did not mitigate his damages.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion seeking court-ordered finalization of a discovery plan after the parties failed to agree.

The court reviewed the history of the parties' negotiations and the general principles applicable to discovery plans under Rule 29.1.

The court finalized the discovery plan, incorporating specific reservations from the defendant regarding the scope of documentary discovery, and set deadlines for productions and oral examinations.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the plaintiff.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her discrimination and reprisal application against her former employer.

The HRTO had found that the applicant signed a full and final release during a mediation, and that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the judicial review, finding that the HRTO's procedural rulings were fair, its credibility assessments were entitled to deference, and its overall decision was reasonable.

This is an appeal from a trial judgment awarding damages in lieu of notice for termination from employment.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's assessment of the respondent’s reasonable notice period, entitlement to a bonus payment during the notice period, and the inclusion of disbursements from a mandatory mediation in the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's application of Bardal factors or the inclusion of pro-rata bonus entitlement.

The court also affirmed that expenses for mandatory mediation, even with a non-roster mediator, are properly included as disbursements in a costs award.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain their former employee, the defendant, from competing, soliciting clients or employees, and using confidential information.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm, as their allegations were based on suspicion rather than clear evidence.

The balance of convenience also heavily favoured the defendant.

The motion was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant's costs of $40,000.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded 10 months' reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiff sought costs on a combined partial and substantial indemnity basis, capped at $56,500 under Rule 76.12.2(1) for Simplified Procedure actions.

The defendant argued for a lower amount.

The court fixed costs at $50,000 inclusive of taxes, plus $4,560.28 for disbursements, noting the straightforward nature of the case and the defendant's refusal to accept the plaintiff's reasonable offers to settle.

The plaintiff, a 47-year-old Director of Marketing and Communication, sued for wrongful dismissal after his employment was terminated without cause after nearly three years of service.

The court found the termination clause in his employment agreement void under the Employment Standards Act.

Considering the Bardal factors and the negative impact of the global pandemic on the plaintiff's ability to secure alternate employment, the court awarded 10 months' reasonable notice.

Claims for bad faith damages regarding a damaged USB stick were dismissed, and the court found no failure to mitigate.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision finding it breached the collective agreement by permitting a third-party hotel to use non-union workers for stage events.

The employer argued the arbitrator unreasonably extended the union's jurisdiction beyond theatrical events and misconstrued the prohibition on contracting out.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement, including the use of extrinsic evidence and the broad interpretation of the word 'permit', was internally coherent, logical, and reasonable.

The plaintiff, a 61-year-old professional engineer, brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action against his employer of approximately 26 years.

The court determined that despite a brief break in service where the plaintiff acted as an independent consultant, his employment should be viewed holistically.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded a 24-month notice period, subject to a two-week contingency deduction for future mitigation.

The court declined to award damages for lost bonuses, finding no evidence that bonuses would likely be paid during the notice period due to the pandemic.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a discovery plan and directions on the scope of documentary discovery in an action regarding unpaid employment bonuses.

The plaintiff sought extensive production of documents and correspondence to support his claim that his bonus should be based on revenue generated by his entire team, rather than just his direct sales.

The court found that while the defendant's approach to relevance was too narrow, many of the plaintiff's requests were overly broad and disproportionate.

The court ordered the defendant to produce specific, targeted data regarding team-generated revenue and limited correspondence, while dismissing the broader requests.

Success was divided, and no costs were awarded.

The appellant was wholly unsuccessful on appeal.

The respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $8,301.47 including HST for the appeal.

The court, considering Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found the requested costs to be fair, reasonable, and proportionate, and ordered the appellant to pay them forthwith to the respondent.

The defendant, Promark Electronics Inc., appealed a Master's interlocutory order requiring it to produce financial documents (including financial statements and sales records for 2002-2016) and answer related questions on examinations for discovery.

The underlying action involved a claim by the plaintiff, Sanford Gray, for wrongful termination by constructive dismissal, alleging a unilateral reduction in his compensation package.

Promark's defence asserted an implied term in the employment agreement allowing it to vary compensation based on business objectives and economic circumstances, specifically profitability and sales diversification.

The Master found the requested financial documentation relevant to test Promark's defence and the plaintiff's counter-allegations regarding the true reasons for the compensation change.

The Superior Court upheld the Master's decision, finding no error of law, mixed fact and law, or fact, concluding that the financial information was relevant to the pleaded issues and that the Master's proportionality assessment was appropriate.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action moved for a further and better affidavit of documents and to compel answers to questions refused at discovery.

The plaintiff alleged constructive dismissal after the defendant unilaterally reduced his compensation package.

The defendant claimed it had unfettered discretion to vary the commission structure based on business realities, including profitability.

The court found the defendant's financial records relevant to test its claim regarding business realities and ordered production of financial books and records from 2000 to 2016.

The court also ordered the defendant's representative to answer most of the refused discovery questions, finding them relevant to the profit margin issue.

The plaintiff was awarded $8,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The applicant, a Black woman, alleged racial discrimination in her employment, claiming a manager engaged in a pattern of abusive behaviour towards her and that her subsequent termination was discriminatory.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success, arguing the conflict was purely interpersonal.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that the allegations of subtle racial discrimination and the reasons for termination required a full evidentiary hearing to resolve.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for partial summary judgment and ordering document production.

The leave motion was dismissed, and the court invited written submissions on costs.

The court awarded costs to the successful responding party, finding the requested amount of $6,535.95 to be proportional and reasonable.

The moving party was ordered to pay the costs forthwith.

The plaintiff, David W. Ernewein, brought motions for production of documents and leave to amend his Statement of Claim, while the defendant, Honda of Canada Mfg., brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's retroactive overtime pay claim as statute-barred.

The court dismissed Honda's summary judgment motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the discoverability of the overtime claim and the application of the Limitations Act.

The court granted Ernewein's motions for production of the termination review document (finding no solicitor-client or litigation privilege), material facts of witness statements, and payroll records, and also granted leave to amend the Statement of Claim to plead discoverability and fraudulent concealment.

The defendant employee moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff employer's claim seeking to enforce a Confidentiality, Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Agreement.

The employee argued the agreement was unenforceable due to lack of consideration and duress, and that the non-competition clause was overly broad.

The court granted the motion, finding that the employer provided no fresh consideration when it required the employee to sign the agreement years after his employment began.

The court also found the non-competition clause to be an unreasonable restraint of trade due to its broad temporal and spatial features.