Jonathan B. Pitblado

The applicants, the estranged wife and daughter of the respondent, brought an application for an oppression remedy under the Business Corporations Act, seeking to remove the respondent from the family's chemical business and force him to sell his shares to them.

The respondent brought a counter-application seeking the reverse.

The court found that the relationship between the parties had irreparably broken down, resulting in a corporate deadlock.

Applying section 207 of the Act, the court ordered the respondent, who was the founder and primary manager of the business, to buy out the applicants' shares at fair market value, as this aligned with the parties' reasonable expectations.

The plaintiff brought a civil action for wrongful dismissal and damages for discrimination under the Human Rights Code following termination after approximately 16 months of employment.

The employer conceded insufficient notice but argued that termination resulted from a corporate restructuring and sale of a business division.

The court applied the Bardal factors and determined reasonable notice to be three months given the employee’s age, position, and short tenure.

The court further found that the employer’s insistence on a complete recovery before permitting a return to work and its conduct surrounding termination demonstrated that the employee’s disability was a significant factor in the dismissal, contrary to s. 5(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for wrongful dismissal and $20,000 in compensation under s. 46.1 for discrimination.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, awarding costs to the respondent in the amount of $8,000.

The appellant, an insurance broker, was dismissed for cause by the respondent employers who alleged incompetence, primarily based on a failure to secure coverage for a client.

The trial judge found no just cause, noting the employers had condoned earlier alleged errors by offering continued employment, and awarded damages for wrongful dismissal.

The Divisional Court overturned the trial decision, finding the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and misapplied the doctrine of condonation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the trial judgment, holding that the Divisional Court failed to accord proper deference to the trial judge's findings of mixed fact and law regarding condonation and his assessment of the evidence.