Jennifer Dolman

The plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal action seeking damages after his employment ended following an extended absence related to claimed depression and anxiety.

The employer moved for summary judgment arguing the employee abandoned or voluntarily resigned by failing to comply with the employer’s short‑term disability plan requirements, failing to provide required medical documentation, relocating provinces without notice, and refusing to return to work despite multiple warnings.

The court held that abandonment is assessed objectively and that the employee’s prolonged absence, failure to follow disability plan procedures, and relocation demonstrated a clear intention not to be bound by the employment contract.

The court rejected arguments that the employer had an independent duty to accommodate beyond the disability plan in the absence of proper medical evidence.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the wrongful dismissal claim.

On a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action, the court held that the employer had not clearly contracted out of the employee's common law entitlement to reasonable notice through its employment offer or internal separation policy.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court fixed reasonable notice at 10 months for a 60-year-old senior managing consultant with approximately eight years of service whose position was eliminated.

The court rejected the employer's mitigation defence, finding the employee's job search and subsequent move to self-employment were reasonable.

Damages were awarded for salary, pension contributions, and replacement benefits, less amounts already paid.

The plaintiffs, franchisees of Shoppers Drug Mart, brought a proposed class action alleging breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty regarding the franchisor's retention of rebates and professional allowances, and its practices regarding cost recovery fees, budgeting, and inventory.

The defendants brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the claims for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court struck the claims for rebates, breach of fiduciary duty, interference with association, and duty of disclosure, finding them untenable based on the clear language of the franchise agreements.

However, the court allowed the claims regarding professional allowances, cost recovery fees, budgeting practices, and inventory practices to proceed, finding it was not plain and obvious they would fail.