Gregory Sills

The court considered a motion by the plaintiffs to extend the time to set their action down for trial under Rule 48.14(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs, alleging wrongful dismissal and related claims, faced delays due to both parties’ conduct, changes in counsel, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the plaintiffs provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, much of which was attributable to inadvertence and file management issues at counsel’s firm, and that the defendants would not suffer non-compensable prejudice if the action proceeded.

The court granted the extension and imposed a timetable for the remaining steps.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence after the defendant repeatedly delayed and ultimately failed to attend scheduled examinations for discovery.

Despite a prior court order mandating the completion of discoveries by a set date and warning of consequences for further non-attendance, the defendant refused to proceed unless it could examine the plaintiff first, contrary to the plaintiff's notice of examination.

The court found the defendant's conduct to be a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings and struck the statement of defence pursuant to Rules 34.15(1)(b) and 60.12.

The plaintiff employee was terminated without cause and the employer refused to pay her contractual two weeks' severance unless she signed a full and final release.

The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal, arguing the employer repudiated the employment contract and that the termination provisions violated the Employment Standards Act.

The court found that the employer's demand for a release in exchange for contractual entitlements constituted a repudiation of the contract, entitling the plaintiff to common law reasonable notice.

The court awarded 6 months' notice, totaling $16,807.52 in damages.

The defendant brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs, asserting the plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside Ontario.

The court found that the plaintiff was indeed ordinarily resident outside Ontario based on his significant time spent in Mexico.

However, the motion was dismissed because the plaintiff successfully demonstrated a good chance of success on the merits of his claim for wrongful dismissal or dependent contractor damages, and the court concluded that the justice of the case did not require an order for security for costs.