Howard A. Levitt

The appellant accepted a commissioned sales position with the respondent and resigned from his previous job.

After starting work, he was required to sign a 'Solicitor's Agreement' that severely restricted his entitlement to commissions.

The appellant later resigned and sued for unpaid commissions.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the agreement enforceable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Solicitor's Agreement was an amendment to the employment contract and was unenforceable for lack of consideration, as the employer did not provide anything of value, such as increased job security, in exchange for the employee signing it.

The appellant was awarded his unpaid commissions.

The appellant employee filed a complaint under the Employment Standards Act for unpaid commissions.

An employment standards officer rejected the claim without providing the employee an opportunity to respond to the employer's submissions.

The employee subsequently pursued a civil action for wrongful dismissal and the unpaid commissions.

The lower courts held the civil claim for commissions was barred by issue estoppel.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that while the preconditions for issue estoppel were met, the doctrine should not be applied as a matter of discretion because the administrative decision was made in a manifestly unfair manner.

Following release of the appeal reasons, the respondent requested an opportunity to make further submissions on trial costs and advised that the trial judge had reduced the general damages award to account for additional workers' compensation benefits.

The court considered the further submissions from both sides and remained satisfied that the trial judge's costs order should stand.

The corrected general damages amount was noted.

In this wrongful dismissal appeal, the employer challenged findings respecting frustration of contract, deduction of Workers’ Compensation Benefits, aggravated damages, and costs, while the employee cross-appealed the deduction issue and the dismissal of punitive damages.

The court held the employer could not invoke frustration after abandoning justification for dismissal, and confirmed that Workers’ Compensation Benefits received during the notice period were deductible but not subject to tax gross-up.

The court set aside aggravated damages because the conduct relied upon fell outside the pleadings as particularized and lacked an adequate evidentiary foundation.

The cross-appeal was dismissed, and the trial costs award was left undisturbed.

The appellants were dismissed without cause from their employment.

Their employment contracts contained termination clauses providing for notice periods less than the minimum required by the Employment Standards Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that because the contractual notice provisions violated the statutory minimums, they were null and void for all purposes.

Consequently, the contracts were treated as being silent on the issue of notice, and the common law presumption of reasonable notice applied.

The employer could not rely on the void clauses as evidence of the parties' intention to limit notice to the statutory minimum.

Counsel for the appellants failed to appear at the scheduled hearing of the appeal, and the Court proceeded to hear oral argument from the respondent only.

The appellants subsequently brought a motion for a re-hearing, claiming they were not notified of the hearing date.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that it is counsel's duty to ascertain inscribed hearing dates, not the Court's duty to inform them.

However, as a matter of indulgence and noting the unusual circumstances, the Court granted the re-hearing, ordering costs of the missed hearing and the motion to be paid personally by the appellants' counsel.