Jonathan Pinkus

The court held that Richard Turcotte was constructively dismissed by Grenville Management Inc. when he was unilaterally laid off during the COVID-19 pandemic, as the employment agreement did not permit such a layoff without his consent.

The court rejected the employer’s argument that pandemic-related regulations suspended the right to claim constructive dismissal at common law.

Turcotte was awarded 16 months’ pay in lieu of notice, with no punitive or moral damages, as the employer’s conduct, while problematic, did not meet the threshold for such awards.

The defendant, The Corporation of the Township of Ignace, sought an adjournment of the trial for a wrongful dismissal and breach of contract claim brought by the plaintiff, Lynda Marie Joan Colby, pending the outcome of a related appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in another case involving the same defendant and similar issues.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the main claim to be advanced at trial—breach of contract—would not be affected by the pending appeal, and that adjourning the trial would set a problematic precedent.

The appellant, The Corporation of the Township of Ignace, appealed a summary judgment order that awarded the respondent, Karen Dufault, damages for wrongful dismissal.

The core issue was the enforceability of termination clauses in an employment contract under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA).

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's finding that the "for cause" termination clause was unenforceable because its definition of "cause" was broader than the ESA's narrow exception for "wilful misconduct." Applying the principle from Waksdale v. Swegon North America Inc., the court held that the invalidity of the "for cause" clause rendered all termination provisions in the contract unenforceable, even though the respondent was terminated without cause.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the original award of damages.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $25,358.33 after successfully obtaining a summary judgment of $157,071.57.

The plaintiff had made a Rule 49 Offer to Settle for $120,000, which was less than the judgment amount.

The defendant made no offer to settle and refused mediation.

Despite the plaintiff's entitlement to substantial indemnity costs due to the Rule 49 offer, the court found the plaintiff's bill of costs excessive given the procedural simplicity of the matter, lack of factual disputes, and minimal time required.

The court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $6,500, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment for wrongful dismissal from a fixed-term employment contract, arguing the termination clauses were unenforceable under the Employment Standards Act (ESA).

The court found the 'for cause' clause violated the ESA by using a common law standard broader than the statutory exemption and allowing withholding of statutory pay.

The 'without cause' clause also contravened the ESA by limiting compensation to base salary and asserting absolute termination discretion.

Consequently, the termination clauses were deemed unenforceable, and the plaintiff was awarded damages for the unexpired term of the fixed-term contract, consistent with the principle that fixed-term contracts without enforceable early termination provisions obligate payment for the full term.

The defendant, Open Storage Solutions Inc., brought a motion to set aside the plaintiff's notice of examination for Don Gilles and substitute Sathiyan Ratnam as the corporate representative for discovery in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff, Simon Jeffrey, opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that the defendant failed to meet the onus to show that Mr. Gilles was an inappropriate witness, and afforded little weight to the defendant's supporting affidavit sworn by an articling student due to its non-compliance with affidavit rules.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

In this wrongful dismissal action, the plaintiff sought leave under Rule 48.04(1) to bring a motion for discovery of six former employees of the defendant, after having already set the action down for trial.

The plaintiff argued that information regarding the termination of other employees was relevant to his claim for unvested restricted share units.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no substantial or unexpected change in circumstances to justify granting leave.

The plaintiff had been aware of the defendant's refusal to provide this information for over two years and had deliberately chosen to set the action down for trial, despite being offered the option to withdraw the trial record to pursue discovery issues.

The court emphasized that discovery of non-parties is an exception, not a rule, and that the plaintiff's desire to maintain his place in the trial queue while pursuing further discovery was not a valid reason to grant leave.

The appellant, Binh Viet Pham, appealed the summary dismissal of his wrongful dismissal claim, which arose from a temporary layoff by the respondent, Qualified Metal Fabricators Ltd. The motion judge erred by proceeding with summary judgment despite the appellant's objection and by misapplying legal principles regarding implied terms for layoffs and condonation.

The Court of Appeal found genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly concerning whether an implied term permitting layoffs existed and whether the appellant condoned the layoff.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment set aside, and the matter remitted for trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action against her employer, Asco Manufacturing.

The plaintiff had worked for the predecessor company since 1981 before it was sold to the defendant in 2017.

The court found that under s. 9(1) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, the plaintiff's employment was continuous.

The court determined that summary judgment was appropriate and awarded the 64-year-old plaintiff 20 months' notice, amounting to $66,391.40, plus costs.

The plaintiff, Adam Papp, brought a claim for wrongful dismissal, defamation, and other damages against his former employer, Stokes Economic Consulting Inc., and its president, Ernest Stokes.

The defendants conceded wrongful dismissal without cause, disputing only the quantum of reasonable notice.

The court found that Ernest Stokes' statements made during a reference check, which led to Papp being denied a job, were substantially true and protected by qualified privilege, as Stokes did not act with malice or recklessness.

Consequently, the defamation claim and associated damages were dismissed.

The court awarded Papp four months' reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal, reduced by payments already received.