Jennifer Heath

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Adam Boyle in his wrongful dismissal claim against Salesforce.com Canada Corporation.

The court found the termination clause in Boyle’s employment contract unenforceable due to ambiguity and non-compliance with the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

Boyle was awarded pay in lieu of reasonable notice for eight months (after a three-month reduction for late production of mitigation evidence), pro-rated bonus and RRSP contributions, and benefits.

Claims for aggravated, punitive, and special damages were dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment regarding unpaid incentive compensation, the successful defendants sought costs of $140,005 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued that no costs should be awarded due to the defendants' conduct causing delay, or alternatively, that the costs were excessive.

The court found that while there was some merit to the plaintiff's complaints about delay, it did not justify denying costs entirely.

The court fixed the costs at $60,000 all-inclusive, noting that the defendants' unaccepted offers to settle were relevant under Rule 57.01(1) despite not triggering Rule 49.10(2).

The plaintiff, Jacob Whiteley, sought summary judgment for $185,948 in unpaid bonuses under his employer Wipro's Sales Incentive and Large Deal Bonus Plan, related to a $119 million sales contract with Innovapost.

The central issue was whether the entire deal constituted a "contracted deal" and "committed order" by the fiscal year-end of March 31, 2014, as required by the Incentive Plan.

The court found that while a Master Services Agreement (MSA) and an amendment were in place, they did not contractually bind Innovapost to purchase services until specific Statements of Work (SOWs) were signed.

Only one SOW, valued at $19 million, was executed by the deadline, for which the plaintiff had already received payment.

The remaining SOWs were finalized after the plaintiff's departure.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, concluding that no further bonus payments were owing as the conditions for payment on the larger deal were not met by the relevant fiscal year-end.

Following a summary judgment for wrongful dismissal, the parties sought costs.

The plaintiff claimed $33,839.99, while the defendant argued its offer to settle triggered Rule 49.10.

The court found the judgment was as favourable as the defendant's final offer to settle, entitling the plaintiff to partial indemnity costs up to the offer date and the defendant to partial indemnity costs thereafter.

As the respective costs amounts were roughly equal, the court ordered the parties to bear their own costs.

The plaintiff, a 52-year-old claims adjuster with over 21 years of service, moved for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal.

The defendant argued for a shorter notice period and a 10% reduction for failure to mitigate.

The court found the plaintiff's position was mid-level technical, warranting a 16-month notice period.

The court also held that the plaintiff's mitigation efforts were reasonable and declined to reduce the damages.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the plaintiff moved for judgment on admissions for unpaid commissions and for summary judgment on entitlement to reasonable notice, while the defendants cross‑moved for summary judgment limiting damages and dismissing certain claims.

The court granted judgment on admitted facts for $75,000 in unpaid commissions and held that the appropriate reasonable notice period at common law for an employee with approximately 11 months’ service was two months.

Because the employer had already paid two months’ salary and partial benefits continuation, only an additional six weeks of benefits was owed.

The claim against the parent holding company was dismissed and the plaintiff’s human rights discrimination claim was summarily dismissed for lack of evidence.

The remaining dispute regarding the calculation of additional commission entitlements was left for trial.

The defendant, a former employee residing in Alberta, brought a motion to stay or dismiss the plaintiff's action in Ontario for repayment of training expenses.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because the employment contract was made in Ontario when the defendant faxed his acceptance to the plaintiff's head office.

However, the court stayed the action on the basis of forum non conveniens, concluding that Alberta was clearly the more appropriate forum given that the applicable law was Alberta law, the factual matters arose in Alberta, and the majority of witnesses resided in Alberta.

The defendant ruptured a gas main while excavating without calling for a utility locate.

The plaintiff successfully appealed the dismissal of its negligence claim to the Divisional Court.

The defendant subsequently brought a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The motion was dismissed because the proposed appeal was largely fact-based, lacked merit, and did not raise an arguable question of law or a matter of public importance.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their claim that they were entitled to a pension option not contained in the respondent's pension plan.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that there was no statutory or common law obligation to offer such an option, particularly in light of s. 22(5) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act.