James Donald Salvatore Heeney

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 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 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 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 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.