4 total
An employer successfully established frustration of contract for an employee on long-term disability using post-termination evidence.
RONA Inc. brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a wrongful dismissal action initiated by Brian Roskaft.
Roskaft, who had been on long-term disability (LTD) since 2012, was terminated in 2015 on the grounds of frustration of contract, with RONA asserting there was no reasonable likelihood of his return to work.
The court considered the totality of evidence, including post-termination medical information, to determine if the contract was frustrated at the time of dismissal.
The motion was granted, and Roskaft's claim was dismissed.
Adjournment request denied for lack of medical evidence; preliminary hearing issues set.
The applicant requested an adjournment of a preliminary hearing due to a medical condition, which the Tribunal denied for lack of sufficient medical documentation.
The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's requests for production and particulars as premature.
The Tribunal directed that the preliminary hearing would address whether a personal respondent should be removed, whether a new application falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant.
An employer's financial difficulties do not justify reducing a wrongfully dismissed employee's reasonable notice period.
The appellant teachers were wrongfully dismissed by the respondent private school.
The motion judge reduced their reasonable notice period from twelve months to six months due to the school's financial difficulties and a presumption about the availability of alternative teaching positions.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that an employer's financial circumstances are not relevant to determining the reasonable notice period under the Bardal factors.
The twelve-month notice period was restored.
Appeal dismissed; trial judge correctly found appellant was hired as temporary acting CAO, not for fixed term.
The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing his claim that he was hired by the respondent municipality for a fixed three-year term as CAO.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant was hired only as an 'Acting CAO/Clerk' on a temporary basis, noting that the documentary evidence, the municipality's past practice, and the appellant's own inconsistent positions supported this conclusion.
The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent municipality.