H. Nieuwland

The defendant employer in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion under Rule 26.01 to amend its Statement of Defence and Counterclaim to plead after-acquired cause, alleging the plaintiff misled it regarding his involvement in a fraudulent hedge fund.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the amendments were legally untenable because the employer knew of the allegations before termination.

The court granted the motion, finding the proposed amendments were legally tenable and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate non-compensable prejudice.

The court also ordered limited further discovery on the amendments but denied the plaintiff's request to examine a second corporate representative.

The defendant brought a motion to strike paragraphs of the plaintiff's amended statement of claim relating to allegations of harassment, discrimination, and reprisal that pre-dated the two-year limitation period.

The plaintiff argued that the allegations formed part of a continuous cause of action or a series of incidents under the Human Rights Code.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the law is unsettled as to whether the Limitations Act or the Human Rights Code limitation period applies to a civil action, and that it was not plain and obvious whether the allegations constituted a series of independent torts or a continuous cause of action.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee damages for wrongful dismissal, including 18 months' pay in lieu of notice, damages for the lost opportunity to sell his book of business, and a three-month extension for Wallace damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's calculation of the notice period and the award for the lost opportunity to sell the book of business.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part by setting aside the Wallace damages, finding that awarding them alongside damages for the lost opportunity to sell the book of business amounted to double recovery.