Jeffrey B. Simpson

The plaintiff, a former Director of Sustainability, brought a motion for summary judgment against his former employer for wrongful dismissal.

The central dispute concerned the enforceability of the termination clause in the employment agreement and stock option agreements, and the appropriate common law notice period.

The court found the termination clause unenforceable because it purported to deny all payments, including statutory minimums, for "just cause" dismissal, which is a broader standard than the "wilful misconduct" exception under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The court awarded the plaintiff six months' common law notice, 10% of his base salary for benefits in lieu of notice, and vacation pay on bonuses and severance pay.

The claim for a further discretionary bonus was dismissed.

The issue of compensation for post-termination stock options was directed to an expedited trial due to unresolved credibility issues.

This motion concerned the approval of several settlement agreements in ongoing automotive parts class actions, specifically with Mitsubishi Heavy, SKF, Brose, and Yamada.

The plaintiffs also sought approval for a distribution protocol for Automotive Bearings, Electric Powered Steering Assemblies, High Intensity Discharge Ballasts, and Manual Steering Columns actions, authorization for using previously produced customer information, honoraria for representative plaintiffs, use of residual wire harness funds, and class counsel's legal fees and disbursements.

The court granted all requests, finding the settlements and distribution protocol fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and the requested fees and honoraria justified.

The appellant employer terminated the respondent employee for just cause following an investigation into a co-worker's complaint of sexual harassment.

The employee refused to apologize for the inappropriate comments, although he agreed to sensitivity training.

The trial judge found the termination was not justified, awarding damages in lieu of notice.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the trial judge erred in failing to properly apply the just cause test, specifically by not characterizing the employee's conduct as sexual harassment and by focusing solely on the refusal to apologize.

The Court determined that the employee's sexually harassing comments, coupled with his lack of remorse and refusal to comply with the employer's reasonable disciplinary requirement of an apology, constituted an irreparable breakdown in the employment relationship, justifying termination for cause.

The appeal was allowed, and the employee's claim was dismissed.

Class members who are not representative plaintiffs have no direct right of appeal from an order approving a settlement in a certified class action.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the decision in Dabbs v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada remains good law and has not been superseded by subsequent decisions.

A settlement approval order is neither a judgment on common issues nor a determination of aggregate damages, and therefore class members cannot seek leave to appeal under section 30(5) of the Class Proceedings Act.

Permitting individual class members to appeal settlement approvals would introduce uncertainty into settlement negotiations, undermine the authority of representative plaintiffs and class counsel, and impede the resolution of class actions.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment concerning contract interpretation.

The trial judge found that the appellant had confirmed agreement with the respondent regarding a new termination date and tail period for the contract, and that this agreement, along with the respondent's emails, satisfied the requirements of clause 10 of the contract.

The trial judge also found that the appellant's March 1, 2002 letter was consistent with a telephone call of February 21, 2002, in which it was agreed that the appellant would send a new cut-off date by letter.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant failed to identify any extricable errors of law and dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiff, a former officer and director of the defendant mining company, sued for wrongful dismissal seeking over $2.3 million under a 2008 Management Consulting Agreement.

The defendant argued the agreement was unenforceable due to the plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty in its negotiation and that, in any event, the plaintiff was terminated for just cause.

The court found the 2008 agreement was the product of a flawed process and contained unfair terms, constituting a breach of fiduciary duty.

Furthermore, the court held the plaintiff's subsequent conduct, including installing hidden cameras, issuing unauthorized press releases, and trading shares during blackout periods, provided just cause for termination.

The action was dismissed.