James Donald Salvatore Heeney

The plaintiff brought a motion to lift the defendant's noting in default and for a litigation timetable in a wrongful resignation action.

The defendant, residing in the Netherlands, argued she was not properly served under the Hague Convention and sought to stay the proceeding.

The court found that the defendant had attorned to the jurisdiction of Ontario by unconditionally participating in mandatory mediation.

The court also noted the defendant's significant delay in bringing her motion to set aside service.

The plaintiff's motion was granted, the default was set aside, and a timetable was ordered.

The plaintiff, a Global Strategic Client Executive earning approximately $760,000 annually, brought a motion for summary judgment for damages arising from his termination without cause by Oracle Canada ULC.

The court awarded 12 months of reasonable notice based on the Bardal factors, including the character of his specialized employment, his age (61), short length of service (3.7 years), and Oracle's failure to provide a meaningful letter of reference.

The court rejected Oracle's mitigation argument as unsupported by affirmative evidence.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for base salary, commissions (calculated on a three-year average), benefits (10% of base salary), and RRSP matching contributions (6% of base salary), less working notice and mitigation income.

The court also awarded punitive damages equal to the withheld commissions for Oracle's breach of the duty of good faith in failing to pay statutory entitlements during the notice period and maintaining an untenable legal position without explanation.

The court considered a wrongful dismissal and unpaid commissions claim by Kashif Salam against his former employer, Ontario Research and Innovation Optical Network (ORION).

The court found that while a draft commission plan was never finalized or binding, the parties’ conduct and employment agreement entitled Mr. Salam to commissions of up to 15% of his base salary.

The court awarded him damages for six months’ reasonable notice, loss of benefits, and commissions, totaling $58,419.52 less statutory deductions.

The Applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits following a low-speed motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Applicant failed to provide contemporaneous medical evidence demonstrating a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment as a cleaning company manager.

The Tribunal relied on insurer's examination reports which found no functional impairments or severe emotional symptomology.

Claims for physiotherapy, psychological services, and an occupational therapy assessment were also dismissed as not reasonable and necessary.

The appellant, Karen Irwin, sued her former employers for constructive dismissal.

The respondents moved to stay the action, arguing an arbitration clause in the employment contract required arbitration.

The appellant challenged the arbitration clause's validity due to unconscionability and inconsistency with the Employment Standards Act and Human Rights Code.

The motion judge stayed the action, deferring the validity question to arbitration.

The appellant appealed, arguing procedural unfairness and that the motion judge erred by not determining the arbitration clause's validity.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction under s. 7(6) of the Arbitration Act, as the motion judge was permitted to leave the validity question to the arbitrator, especially since it involved mixed questions of fact and law requiring more than superficial consideration.

The plaintiff commenced an action for constructive dismissal against her former employer.

The defendants moved to stay the action under Rule 21.01(3) and s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, relying on an arbitration clause in the plaintiff's employment agreement.

The plaintiff argued the arbitration clause was invalid, unconscionable, and contracted out of minimum employment standards.

Applying the competence-competence principle, the court held that the arbitral tribunal must first determine the validity of the arbitration clause.

The action was stayed pending the arbitrator's determination of the jurisdictional challenge.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario reconsidered its prior decision in light of a Supreme Court of Canada remand order, which directed disposition in accordance with *Matthews v. Ocean Nutrition Canada Ltd.* The original appeal concerned whether a wrongfully dismissed employee was entitled to hold shares and receive share bonuses during the reasonable notice period, as determined by a motion judge.

The Court of Appeal had previously found against the employee.

Upon reconsideration, the court affirmed its earlier decision, holding that *Ocean Nutrition* applies to damages arising from a breach of an employment contract, whereas the employee's claim to shares and share bonuses arose from his rights as a shareholder under a Shareholders' Agreement, not as an employee.

An employee-owned engineering firm terminated a 31-year employee without cause and paid him for his shares based on the fair value 30 days after termination, as specified in the shareholders' agreement.

The employee sought damages for wrongful dismissal and claimed he was entitled to share value calculated at the end of the reasonable notice period (26 months) plus share bonuses accrued during that period.

The motion judge granted partial summary judgment in the employee's favour, relying on the principle that a wrongfully dismissed employee should be placed in the position they would have been in if lawfully terminated.

The appellate court reversed, holding that the employee's contractual rights under the shareholders' agreement are separate and distinct from his common law employment rights, and that the shareholders' agreement clearly triggered the share repurchase process upon termination of employment, not at the end of the notice period.

Mr. Ivars Mikelsteins, a 57-year-old employee with 31 years of service, was terminated without cause from Morrison Hershfield Ltd. He brought a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal damages, including reasonable notice, benefits, share valuation increases, share bonuses, and a gross-up on share value.

The court determined a reasonable notice period of 26 months, awarded damages for base salary, bonus, and RRSP contributions, and 10% of base salary for lost benefits for the remaining notice period.

The court also found Mikelsteins entitled to damages for the increase in share value, share bonuses, and a gross-up, rejecting the employer's argument that the Shareholders' Agreement ousted common law entitlements.

The court adopted a partial summary judgment approach for mitigation, requiring monthly payments and allowing the employer to challenge mitigation efforts later.

The defendant, a US citizen residing in Texas, brought a motion to stay the plaintiff's breach of employment contract action on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The plaintiff, a consulting firm with its head office in Toronto, hired the defendant to provide services globally.

The employment agreement specified Ontario law as the governing law.

The court applied the test from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda and the factors from Young v. Tyco, finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate that Texas was a clearly more appropriate jurisdiction.

The motion to stay was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order of a motions judge in a judicial review proceeding arising from an employment dispute with Tim Hortons Inc. The applicant argued that his wife should be added as a party, that the record of proceedings was incomplete, and that the respondents' facta should be struck.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error by the motions judge.

The court confirmed that the applicant's wife was not a proper party to the employment litigation, the record of proceedings was complete, and there was no basis to strike the facta or find a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The plaintiff, Trindent Management Consulting Inc., brought a motion for particulars of two paragraphs in the defendants' (Carpedia International Ltd. et al.) statement of defence and counterclaim.

The defendants alleged that Trindent's president, Adrian Travis, improperly took and used Carpedia's confidential and proprietary information when he left to start Trindent.

The defendants argued that the particulars were within Travis's knowledge and not necessary for Trindent to plead.

The court granted the motion, finding that particulars were necessary to enable Trindent to prepare a defence, delineate the scope of productions and discoveries, and define the issues for trial, rejecting the argument that the information was solely within the plaintiff's knowledge.

The applicant brought a motion for procedural relief in his application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

He sought to have his wife represent him or be added as a party, production of his opening submissions to the Board, production of 750 pages of payroll records, and to strike the respondents' facta.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding no legal basis for spousal representation, noting the Board record was complete, and holding that disagreement with a factum is not grounds to strike it.

Costs of $3,500 were awarded to the respondent employer.

The plaintiff, Eric Mezin, brought a motion for further particulars regarding the defendants' statements of defence in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff alleged bullying, discrimination, harassment, and retaliation leading to his termination.

The defendants, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (HMQ) and Daniel Cayen, denied the allegations and asserted that the termination was justified due to performance issues.

The court, applying Rules 25.06 and 25.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found that the particulars sought were necessary to define the issues, enable the plaintiff to plead a meaningful reply, and facilitate preparation for discovery, especially given the time limits on examinations for discovery.

The motion was granted, and the defendants were ordered to provide the particulars.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and disability following his termination.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed at a summary hearing, arguing the applicant was terminated for attempting to steal company property and had not established a link to a Code ground.

The Tribunal found the application could proceed, as there were factual disputes regarding the alleged theft and the applicant provided names of other terminated and hired employees to support his race discrimination claim.

The Tribunal also noted the timing of the termination, one day after the respondent's WSIA re-employment obligations ended, was sufficient for the disability claim to proceed.

The respondent employer brought a request to dismiss the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a WSIB Case Manager's decision had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB decision only addressed the applicant's temporary compensable injury and did not deal with the central issue of whether the employer failed to accommodate the applicant's permanent restrictions and discriminatorily terminated his employment for frustration of contract.

This was a costs decision following a damages award in an employment dispute.

The defendant argued that no costs should be awarded because the recovery only slightly exceeded the Small Claims Court jurisdiction, and alternatively challenged the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly rate and the proportionality of the claim.

Applying Rule 57.01 and the governing appellate framework on reasonable and fair costs, the court held that costs were warranted and awarded the full amount sought on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff recovered $18,215 in costs.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual solicitation and reprisal against a Tim Hortons franchisee and its franchisor, TDL.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal denied TDL's request to be removed as a respondent, finding it premature without evidence regarding TDL's role in addressing public complaints.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's 2009 allegations as independent Code violations due to delay, but allowed them to remain as foundational facts for her 2013 reprisal claim.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to amend her application to include new reprisal allegations based on the delivery of legal materials and public encounters.

The plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal action following termination after 14 years of employment as an accounts receivable/payroll administrator.

The primary issue was the appropriate period of reasonable notice and the quantum of damages where the trial occurred before the full notice period had elapsed.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court determined that a reasonable notice period was 12 months.

However, only 10 months had passed since termination and the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence establishing that she would be unable to mitigate during the remaining period.

The court awarded damages for the proven 10 months of unemployment, less amounts already paid, and ordered conditional payment of the remaining two months subject to mitigation if no employment was obtained.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The respondent requested deferral of the application pending the conclusion of a concurrent Employment Standards Act claim before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant also requested production of documents.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for documents as premature and granted the respondent's request to defer the application, finding substantial overlap in the facts and issues between the two proceedings.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to cease making inappropriate comments about the respondent's counsel.