Jennifer R. Bernardo

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim for the value of Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) that would have vested during the common law notice period following his wrongful dismissal.

The respondents cross-appealed the finding that the termination provisions of the employment agreement were void for contravening the Employment Standards Act 2000 (ESA).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the cross-appeal, upholding the finding that the termination clause violated the ESA.

The Court allowed the appeal regarding the RSUs, finding that the RSU Agreements contravened the ESA by purporting to alter a term or condition of employment during the statutory notice period.

The appellant was awarded damages for the RSUs that would have vested during the 10-month notice period.

The appeal regarding punitive damages was dismissed.

Five organizations brought motions for leave to intervene in an appeal concerning the constitutionality of provincial legislation that required the removal of bicycle lanes in Toronto.

The underlying judgment found the legislation violated section 7 of the Charter.

The motion judge granted leave to all five proposed interveners, but limited the scope of their interventions to specific issues such as the positive/negative rights dichotomy, the interpretation of recent section 7 jurisprudence, and the application of equality and child-interest principles to the gross disproportionality analysis.

The interveners were restricted to 10-page factums and brief oral submissions.

The moving party sought an extension of time to apply for judicial review of a 2021 Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that dismissed his duty of fair representation complaint as premature.

The court initiated a process under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to consider dismissing the proceeding as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Despite being granted multiple extensions and accommodations for medical issues, the moving party failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the three-year delay or demonstrate apparent grounds for relief.

The court found the proceeding met the test under Rule 2.1 and dismissed the motion.

The appellant, Ahmad Mohammad (also known as Ahmad Yousef), brought three appeals from Superior Court orders dismissing his actions under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal considered dismissing the appeals and revoking the appellant's fee waivers under the Administration of Justice Act.

The court found the proceedings to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, lacking intelligible grounds or causes of action.

The panel review motions for two appeals (McMaster University and Chaimowitz) were dismissed under r. 2.1.02, and the third appeal (Google) was dismissed under r. 2.1.01 for failure to perfect.

The court also revoked the appellant's fee waivers and prohibited further fee waiver requests without judicial permission.

No costs were awarded.

The respondent was employed by the appellant, a commercial real estate company, from 2001-2004 and again from 2009-2017, serving as Managing Director.

Upon termination without cause on January 19, 2017, the respondent received statutory minimums under the Employment Standards Act but no bonus compensation.

The respondent sued for wrongful dismissal, claiming damages for reasonable notice, benefits during the notice period, and lost bonus compensation.

The motion judge found the termination clause unenforceable as it contracted out of employment standards without providing greater benefits.

The Court of Appeal upheld this finding and confirmed the respondent's entitlement to bonus damages for both the period worked and the notice period, as well as benefits compensation.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an interim remedy to resume her studies, an adjournment of the upcoming hearing, and an extension of time to file disclosure documents.

The Tribunal deferred the interim remedy request to the outset of the hearing, denied the adjournment request as no exceptional circumstances were shown, and granted a short extension of time for the applicant and one respondent to complete their disclosure obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against McMaster University, Mohawk College, and nine individual employees, alleging discrimination based on family and marital status.

The corporate respondents requested the removal of the nine personal respondents from the proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the corporate respondents accepted vicarious liability for the actions of their employees, were capable of remedying any alleged wrongdoing, and there was no compelling reason to keep the individuals as personal respondents.

An appeal and cross-appeal concerning a contractual dispute between two friends and their respective companies regarding an employment agreement.

The trial judge found that an oral employment agreement was reached in October 2003 between Mark Couper and Vitaquest International LLC, and that Vitaquest repudiated the agreement in early March 2005.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's finding that Couper was entitled to damages equivalent to base pay for the period October 2003 to March 2005.

The respondent cross-appealed on the issue of whether he was entitled to a US$5 million payment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings.