Ian St. John

The court continued a summary judgment motion in two wrongful dismissal claims.

In the Ratigan claim, full summary judgment was granted for $73,076.

In the Bouttier claim, partial summary judgment was previously granted, and the court now determined the method of payment for the remaining balance of $304,079.41, ruling it should be a lump sum.

The defendant failed to participate meaningfully despite adjournments.

Both plaintiffs were awarded substantial indemnity costs under Rule 49, totaling $10,000 for Ratigan and $15,000 for Bouttier, in addition to previously ordered costs.

The plaintiff, EllisDon Residential Inc., sought an injunction against Limen Group Const. (2019) Ltd. to resume work and against Defendant Unions for inducing breach of contract and interfering with economic relations.

The defendants argued the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) had exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute.

The court applied the Weber test, finding the essential character of the dispute related to labour relations and the interpretation of collective agreements, falling within the OLRB's exclusive jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the injunction motion and stayed the action, deferring to the OLRB.

This endorsement addresses two wrongful dismissal actions brought by Diane Ratigan and Thomas Bouttier against Premier Conferencing (Canada) Limited, heard together as summary judgment motions.

The core dispute revolved around the defendant's obligation to pay severance as a lump sum versus periodically, with mitigation having been waived as an issue.

The court granted full judgment to Ratigan for six months' severance and partial judgment to Bouttier for the first six months of his twelve-month entitlement, including salary, relocation, benefits, and RRSP contributions.

The remaining portion of Bouttier's motion was adjourned to determine the lump sum versus periodic payment for the latter six months, given the defendant's counsel's withdrawal and potential new counsel.

The plaintiff construction manager sought an urgent hearing for an injunction to prevent the defendant union from allegedly intimidating a masonry contractor's employees into refusing to work.

The developer, Westbank, sought and was granted intervenor status.

The court declined to schedule the injunction motion on an urgent basis, finding that the delay in bringing the action was strategic and the alleged urgency was self-induced.

The parties were directed to schedule a regular motion date.

Following a summary judgment motion where the defendant was substantially successful in defeating the plaintiff law firm's claim to enforce a liquidated damages clause, the court assessed costs.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $46,750.08, while the plaintiff argued for $10,000.00.

The court found the motion to be of moderate complexity but noted some duplication of effort by the defendant's counsel.

Costs were fixed at $35,000.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following a decision dismissing the plaintiff law firm's claim for liquidated damages against a former partner, the parties sought directions on consequential issues.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay $897.15 in interest for withholding the defendant's capital account funds, exercising its discretion under section 130 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court also ordered the defendant to pay her portion of the actual costs to remove her from the firm's corporate and partnership registers, rather than an estimated amount.

The plaintiff law firm sought to enforce a liquidated damages clause against a departing partner.

The defendant partner counterclaimed for repayment of a capital account loan and unpaid draw.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding the liquidated damages clause inapplicable as the defendant's departure qualified as a retirement under the partnership agreement.

The court allowed the defendant's counterclaim for the capital account repayment and interest on the portion withheld by the firm, but dismissed the claim for the unpaid draw.

The appellant teachers were wrongfully dismissed by the respondent private school.

The motion judge reduced their reasonable notice period from twelve months to six months due to the school's financial difficulties and a presumption about the availability of alternative teaching positions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that an employer's financial circumstances are not relevant to determining the reasonable notice period under the Bardal factors.

The twelve-month notice period was restored.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing his claim that he was hired by the respondent municipality for a fixed three-year term as CAO.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant was hired only as an 'Acting CAO/Clerk' on a temporary basis, noting that the documentary evidence, the municipality's past practice, and the appellant's own inconsistent positions supported this conclusion.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent municipality.

The defendants moved to stay or dismiss a long-term disability action based on the plaintiff's failure to pay a prior full indemnity costs award made payable forthwith, and alternatively sought security for costs.

The plaintiff cross-moved to vary the costs order to permit instalment payments, relying on impecuniosity.

The court held the plaintiff was not entitled to vary the prior order, emphasizing the reprehensible conduct underlying the elevated costs award, the delay in offering partial payment, and the late disclosure of litigation indemnity coverage.

The action was stayed pending payment of the outstanding costs award, but security for costs was refused because of access to justice concerns and the existence of a $100,000 indemnity agreement.

In this costs endorsement following an employment dispute, the plaintiffs argued they had beaten the defendant's collective settlement offer, while the defendant sought costs consequences under rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the offer should not determine costs, emphasizing that the defendant had lost the fundamental issues at trial and had pursued an uncompromising litigation position inconsistent with the settlement-promoting purpose of the rule.

The court declined to award any costs to the defendant and instead awarded the plaintiffs $42,000, reduced to reflect their limited success on the length of the notice period.

On a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action, the court held that a series of annual teacher contracts and letters of appointment at a private school did not create fixed-term employment.

Reading the contracts as a whole, and construing ambiguity against the employer, the court found the arrangements contemplated ongoing employment and were contracts of indefinite duration.

The teachers were therefore entitled to common law reasonable notice.

Applying the Bardal factors in light of the school's financial instability, recurring enrolment uncertainty, and the teachers' awareness of that context, the court fixed notice at six months and rejected both mitigation-based reductions and claims for bad faith damages.

The defendants sought costs thrown away following an adjournment of a scheduled trial.

The court noted that the adjournment resulted from the plaintiff’s lack of preparation and disclosure, and criticized the plaintiff’s counsel for making statements about important facts that were later retracted as false.

The plaintiff’s counsel also failed to provide written submissions on costs despite being given a deadline.

The court awarded the defendants costs thrown away on a full indemnity basis for the futile attendance.

Following a three‑day trial in which the plaintiff’s wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed, the defendant municipality sought costs of approximately $194,144.88.

The court found that the materials provided were insufficient to justify the amount sought and appeared to include costs related to other actions that had been settled before trial.

Because the record lacked sufficient information to assess the requested amount, the court declined to determine a specific figure.

Costs of the wrongful dismissal claim were awarded to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis, with the amount to be assessed pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure.

A municipal administrator brought an action for wrongful dismissal alleging he had been hired under a three‑year fixed‑term contract as CAO/Clerk of a municipality.

The municipality asserted that the appointment was temporary and that services were provided through the plaintiff’s consulting company on an interim basis while a permanent replacement was sought.

The court rejected the authenticity and reliability of an alleged email exchange said to form a fixed‑term employment contract and found that the municipal by‑laws and surrounding evidence demonstrated a temporary acting appointment.

The court further concluded the services were provided through the plaintiff’s corporation as an independent contractor arrangement.

As the temporary engagement ended when the municipality appointed a permanent replacement, no notice or damages were owed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent breached Minutes of Settlement by delaying the payment of general damages and failing to provide an original tax receipt for a charitable donation made in her name.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the settlement by failing to make the payment directly to the applicant until four and a half months after it was due.

Applying the factors from Saunders, the Tribunal awarded the applicant $2,500 in damages for the breach, considering the delay, the need to incur further legal expenses, and the resulting anxiety.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction restraining union members from blockading its premises and engaging in intimidation and other unlawful conduct during a labour dispute.

Evidence established that picketers blocked trucks carrying materials from entering or leaving the employer’s facility and intimidated employees who continued working at residential construction sites.

The court held that picketing is lawful only when it constitutes communication and not obstruction or blockade.

The deliberate obstruction of property access and threats against workers constituted tortious and unlawful conduct, satisfying the requirements for interlocutory relief.

The court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and a balance of convenience favouring the employer.

An interlocutory injunction was granted establishing an ingress/egress protocol and prohibiting tortious and unlawful conduct by union members.

The self-represented plaintiff brought motions for partial summary judgment in two related civil actions arising from municipal employment disputes.

In the first action, the plaintiff alleged breach of a mediated settlement agreement and defamation arising from public statements made by municipal officials and sought damages and an injunction enforcing a confidentiality clause.

In the second action, the plaintiff sought summary judgment for wrongful dismissal against a municipality and sanctions for failure to comply with a court-ordered timetable.

The court held that genuine issues requiring a trial existed in both actions because the disputes depended heavily on credibility and conflicting evidence regarding the parties’ intentions and the nature of the employment relationship.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate, though the court imposed modest sanctions against the municipality for breaching the litigation timetable.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging the responding party contractor violated the provincial collective agreement by subcontracting the delivery and stockpiling of drywall to a non-union supplier.

The responding party brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance on the basis of res judicata or issue estoppel, relying on a prior Board decision (*Four Seasons Drywall*) which held that the delivery of drywall to a jobsite stockpile by a supplier was not construction work covered by the collective agreement.

The Board applied the test for issue estoppel and found that the same issue had been finally decided in the prior case involving the same union and supplier.

The Board concluded it should not relitigate the issue of whether delivery of drywall constitutes construction work, and dismissed the grievance.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees of the responding party.

Following a representation vote in which more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.