Jeffrey E. Goodman

The plaintiff sought summary judgment for wrongful dismissal damages after being terminated without cause.

The court found the employment agreement's termination clause to be unclear and incomplete, thus entitling the plaintiff to common law reasonable notice.

The court awarded 22 months' notice, determining the plaintiff held a senior executive role.

It also ruled that the Ontario Employment Standards Act applied to the calculation of lost benefits, despite the plaintiff working in California, due to an Ontario choice-of-law clause in the agreement, rejecting the defendant's public policy argument.

The valuation of lost benefits was deferred for further resolution, and mitigation income was partially offset by $30,000 USD.

The defendant, SPS Commerce Canada Ltd., brought a motion to strike paragraphs 33 to 40 of the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, arguing they contained without prejudice settlement discussions protected by settlement privilege.

The plaintiff, Tricia Clayton, opposed the motion, distinguishing between settlement discussions regarding a severance package and communications related to the employer's statutory duty to investigate harassment allegations and a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).

The court found that the three conditions for settlement privilege were not met for the communications concerning the investigation and PIP, as these were factual and part of the employer's statutory obligations, not attempts to effect a settlement.

The motion to strike was dismissed.

Two separate representative actions were brought on behalf of approximately 800 terminated employees of bankrupt meat processing companies.

The first action (Caetano) was brought by a union representative on behalf of 700 unionized employees; the second (Abreu) was brought by non-union employees on behalf of approximately 100 non-unionized employees.

The defendants moved to stay the Caetano action on jurisdictional grounds and to strike the representative elements of both actions as statute-barred.

The motion judge stayed the Caetano action and struck the representative aspect of the Caetano action but allowed the Abreu action to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Caetano appeal and allowed the Abreu appeal, striking the representative aspect of the Abreu action as well.

The plaintiff, having been entirely successful on a motion, sought partial indemnity costs of $14,338.80.

The defendants argued costs should be in the cause or parties should bear their own costs.

The court rejected the defendants' position, finding the plaintiff was the clear winner.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality under Rule 57.01, the court reduced the claimed amount and awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $8,400.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable forthwith.

A family-owned meat processing business went bankrupt, terminating approximately 800 employees.

Two representative actions were commenced: one by Sam Caetano for unionized employees and another by Debbie and Alex Abreu for non-unionized employees, alleging wrongful dismissal, common employment, conspiracy, and oppression against solvent related companies and individuals.

The defendants brought motions to stay the Caetano action for lack of jurisdiction and to dismiss both representative actions as time-barred.

The court granted the jurisdiction motion, staying the Caetano action entirely, finding that claims by unionized employees under a collective agreement fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour tribunals.

The court also granted in part the limitations motion, dismissing the Caetano representative action as time-barred because the required Rule 12.08 representation order was not obtained prior to commencement.

However, the Abreu representative action, brought under Rule 10.01, was found not to be time-barred, but was allowed to proceed only on the condition that the plaintiffs forthwith obtain a representation order.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a proposed settlement in a certified class action regarding a mass termination without notice or severance pay.

The employer had gone bankrupt, leaving the plaintiffs to pursue the directors and officers and their liability insurance policy.

After complex litigation and negotiations regarding the depletion of the insurance policy, a settlement was reached for approximately $1.77 million.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, providing significant recovery where there was high risk of none.

The court also approved class counsel's fee request of one-third of the settlement amount, noting the high risk undertaken and the excellent result achieved.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claims for wrongful dismissal against affiliated companies of his bankrupt former employer.

He argued they were liable as common employers and conspired to use the bankruptcy process to defeat his claims.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no evidentiary basis for the common employer claim and that the employment agreements precluded joint liability.

The court also found no unfairness in the motion judge requesting additional submissions on the common employer issue.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiff's claims in one of two proceedings, the court issued a supplementary endorsement to finalize the consolidation order and determine costs.

The court rejected the defendants' request to require pre-clearance of the plaintiff's Consolidated Statement of Defence.

On costs, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding partial indemnity appropriate.

Considering the plaintiff's financial circumstances and the defendants' over-lawyering, the court fixed costs at $30,000 payable to the defendants.

The plaintiff, former CEO of the defendants, sued for wrongful dismissal and related torts, alleging the defendants were common employers with his bankrupt direct employer and conspired to place it into bankruptcy to avoid paying his severance.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding the tort claims were an impermissible collateral attack on the bankruptcy orders and lacked evidentiary support.

The court also held that the written employment agreements precluded a finding of common employer liability, and that a release executed by the plaintiff in favour of the bankrupt employer's trustee operated to release the defendants as alleged joint debtors in any event.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

While awaiting a decision on a preliminary issue of delay, the applicant commenced a Small Claims Court action seeking damages for the same alleged Code infringements to preserve her limitation period.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code is mandatory and prohibits an application where a civil proceeding seeking remedies for the same alleged infringement has been commenced.

The Application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the appellants challenged Ontario jurisdiction and argued that procedural steps they took within that challenge did not amount to attornment.

The Court of Appeal held that requests for a temporary stay and to strike the amended pleading were procedural steps confined to obtaining a proper foundation for the jurisdiction motion and did not go beyond challenging jurisdiction.

The court therefore set aside the motion judge's ruling on attornment.

Exercising its appellate power, the court dismissed the temporary stay motion on the merits because the bankruptcy stays affecting the corporate defendants were unlikely to be lifted, and it ordered no costs given divided success.

Following a successful certification motion in a proposed class proceeding brought by former employees against corporate and individual defendants, the plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $64,000.

The defendants argued that no costs should be awarded due to their partial success on a Rule 21 motion and their role in narrowing the plaintiffs’ claims.

The court held that while the plaintiffs achieved overall success on certification, their success was limited because several causes of action were dismissed and the scope of the claims was reduced.

Exercising its discretion under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the court reduced the requested partial indemnity costs and awarded a global amount.

Costs of $50,000 inclusive were ordered payable forthwith to reflect the plaintiffs’ overall success.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action on behalf of 521 dismissed employees of an insolvent call centre.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to strike several claims, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction due to pending Employment Standards Act proceedings and that the pleadings failed to disclose reasonable causes of action.

The court struck the breach of fiduciary duty claims but allowed the negligence, conspiracy, inducing breach of contract, and oppression remedy claims to proceed.

The court held that while s. 97 of the Employment Standards Act precluded some employees from advancing wrongful dismissal claims, it did not bar them from participating in the class action for the other tort and statutory claims.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

The respondent insurance company requested a summary hearing to dismiss the applicant's human rights application, which alleged discrimination in services and contracts based on disability.

The applicant's driver's licence had been suspended for over 36 months due to a medical condition, resulting in her classification as a novice driver upon reinstatement and subjecting her to higher insurance premiums.

The respondent argued its rating rule was protected under section 22 of the Human Rights Code as a reasonable and bona fide insurance practice.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for summary dismissal, finding that whether the rating rule's failure to distinguish between rank novices and experienced drivers was reasonable required a factual inquiry, meaning the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

Following settlement of a security for costs motion by consent order requiring the corporate plaintiffs to post security into court, the court was asked to determine costs of the motion.

The plaintiffs argued the motion was unnecessary because they had offered undertakings from partners and allegedly accepted settlement proposals involving promissory notes.

The court held that a costs endorsement should not determine the merits of the underlying motion and applied the test of whether the moving parties’ position was clearly unreasonable.

It found the defendants reasonably proceeded with the motion, as the sufficiency of the undertakings and the existence of a concluded settlement were not self‑evident and the plaintiffs failed to provide timely details.

The moving parties, having obtained substantially the relief sought through the consent order, were awarded partial indemnity costs.

The employee appealed a summary judgment order dismissing his misrepresentation claim against his former employer based on the expiry of the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's conclusion that there may not have been a definitive decision to breach the contract until 2007 applied equally to the misrepresentation claim.

Therefore, the discoverability of the falsity of the recruitment representation was a triable issue.

The defendant employer brought a motion for leave to appeal a partial summary judgment order that refused to dismiss the plaintiff employee's breach of contract claim.

The defendant argued the claim was barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, and that the motion judge erred in finding a triable issue regarding when the claim was discovered.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge's decision was entirely fact-based and did not involve matters of such importance that leave should be granted under Rule 62.02(4).

The plaintiff obtained a judgment for wrongful dismissal and unpaid commissions against his former employer, Westsun Show Systems Inc. Without attempting to execute the judgment, he brought a second action against the parent company's directors and officers, and former officers of the employer.

The trial judge found several directors liable for the wage debts and held a corporate representative personally liable for the costs of the first trial under the oppression remedy.

The Court of Appeal allowed the defendants' appeals, finding no duty on the corporate representative to disclose the lack of directors to an adverse party, and holding that the plaintiff failed to meet the strict statutory preconditions and limitation periods for directors' liability under the Manitoba Corporations Act.

The plaintiff's appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The employer appealed a summary judgment decision that found it liable for wrongful dismissal.

The motions judge had granted summary judgment under Rule 76.06(14) but ordered a trial on damages due to conflicting evidence regarding bad faith.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a full trial, finding that the motions judge erred in granting summary judgment because she could not resolve the conflicting affidavit evidence regarding the circumstances of the termination without cross-examination.