Jason J. Jagpal

The Court of Appeal heard two appeals concerning the enforceability of termination clauses in employment contracts.

In both cases, the employees argued that provisions allowing termination without cause 'at any time' or 'for any reason' violated the Employment Standards Act (ESA) by theoretically permitting termination in circumstances prohibited by statute, such as after a leave or as a reprisal.

The Court rejected this literal interpretation, holding that employment contracts must be read in context to determine the parties' objective intentions.

Given the contracts' express commitments to comply with ESA minimums, the 'at any time' language simply meant the termination would be legally effective regardless of when it occurred, not that the employer could violate statutory prohibitions.

The Court also upheld a 'with cause' provision that defined cause more broadly than the ESA's 'wilful misconduct' standard, because it expressly preserved the employee's right to ESA minimums if terminated for cause.

The appeal in Baker was allowed, and the appeal in Li was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment in an action for wrongful dismissal.

He was terminated without cause months into a five-year fixed-term employment agreement.

The defendants failed to defend the action and did not attend the motion.

The court found the termination provisions in the employment agreement violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and were therefore unenforceable.

The court granted default judgment, awarding the plaintiff unpaid wages, unreimbursed business expenses, and the balance of the wages he would have received for the remainder of the fixed-term contract, plus costs.

The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment between Kishan Patel (and his company TechSpirer Inc.) and ITCAD Tech Inc. regarding unpaid invoices and the enforceability of a non-competition clause in a consulting agreement.

The court found that TechSpirer Inc. was an independent contractor, not an employee, and that the non-competition clause was valid and enforceable.

Damages were awarded to both parties, with the plaintiffs receiving unpaid invoices and punitive damages, and the defendant receiving partial damages for breach of the non-compete.

The court also addressed issues of frustration, repudiation, and costs.

The plaintiff, Amit Arora, was terminated for cause by ICICI Bank of Canada after 15 years of employment.

The Bank alleged breaches of duties of good faith and loyalty, including sharing confidential information with competitors (BMO and RBC), planning to compete with the Bank by incorporating a company (BrainTree) with subordinates, and dishonesty during the internal investigation.

The court found that Arora was not a fiduciary but breached his common law and contractual duties by sharing proprietary documents, involving subordinates in competitive plans, and being untruthful during the investigation.

The court concluded that the cumulative effect of these serious breaches warranted summary dismissal, as they fundamentally undermined the employment relationship.

The plaintiff's claims for wrongful dismissal, moral damages, and bonus/ESOP benefits were dismissed.

The appellant, Mounir Nader, appealed the dismissal of his claim for damages related to the early termination of his secondment agreement with Ontario Health and University Health Network (UHN).

He sought payment for the remaining term of the secondment, 12 months' severance, and a discretionary annual performance-based bonus.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the secondment agreement was not an employment agreement and that the appellant was only entitled to 12 months' severance under his employment agreement, not additional payment for the secondment term.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred in denying the performance-based bonus, concluding it was an integral part of compensation and should be awarded for the severance period.

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant hospital network and subsequently seconded to a provincial health agency.

The secondment was terminated early, and the plaintiff's employment was terminated without cause.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the secondment agreement was a fixed-term employment contract entitling him to compensation for the balance of the term, plus 12 months' severance under his original employment agreement.

The court dismissed this claim, finding the secondment agreement was not an employment contract and the plaintiff remained an employee of the hospital network subject to the 12-month termination provision.

The court awarded the plaintiff a $5,000 health care spending account but dismissed his claim for a performance bonus.

The defendants' counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record shortly before a scheduled wrongful dismissal trial.

The plaintiff opposed any adjournment of the trial date but did not oppose the removal of counsel.

The court granted the motion to remove counsel due to a breakdown in the relationship and lack of instructions following a corporate acquisition.

However, the court refused to adjourn the trial date, finding that the corporate defendant had ignored the approaching trial and that an adjournment would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff.

The judge conducted a second case conference in a wrongful dismissal action, aiming to schedule a summary judgment motion.

The court noted the prevalence of "tactical pleadings" that hinder efficient resolution and emphasized counsel's dual duty of advocacy and objective advice.

Due to the persistence of complex, potentially tactical claims (e.g., suing directors personally, asserting cause for dismissal based on old issues), the case was deemed unsuitable for summary judgment.

Instead, the judge issued detailed directions for trial preparation, including managing a motion for costs appeal, developing a hybrid trial plan, identifying witnesses, preparing a joint book of documents with hyperlinks, and considering witness testimony by affidavit.

The court encouraged settlement before incurring significant trial costs.

Following a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff damages for a motor vehicle accident, the defendants brought a threshold motion arguing the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the statutory exceptions under the Insurance Act.

The core issue was whether the accident caused the plaintiff's left knee injury, given his preexisting osteoarthritis.

The court preferred the plaintiff's expert evidence that the minor force of the accident converted his asymptomatic arthritis into symptomatic arthritis.

The court found the plaintiff met his burden of proof on causation for the knee injury, which satisfied the threshold requirements.

The defendants' motion was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs) after the insurer terminated them.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility, noting inconsistencies between her testimony, her reported pain, and the extensive medical imaging which showed no abnormalities.

Multiple independent medical examinations concluded there was no physical or psychological barrier preventing her return to work.

The arbitrator held that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment as a personal support worker, nor did she meet the post-104 week test of a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The claims for IRBs and interest were dismissed, and the insurer was awarded its expenses.