The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim against an individual respondent on a Rule 21 motion.
The appellant was employed by the corporate respondent and alleged his employment was wrongfully terminated as reprisal for a workplace injury claim.
The motion judge struck the claim against the individual respondent, finding insufficient pleading of grounds to establish personal liability outside the scope of corporate duties.
The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that while tortious conduct allegations may form the basis for personal liability against officers or directors, such claims must be specifically and adequately pleaded with clarity and precision.
Bald or vague assertions of intentional tortious conduct are insufficient to defeat a Rule 21 motion.
