Jonathan Pitblado

The defendant employer brought a motion to strike a paragraph in the plaintiff's statement of claim that referenced a settlement offer made at the time of termination.

The plaintiff alleged the offer was abusive and warranted punitive damages because it withheld Employment Standards Act entitlements unless a release was signed.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the pleading raised a valid claim for punitive damages with an air of reality, as the offer could be construed as containing a threat.

The plaintiff, Mary Ann Pepper, brought a Rule 76 Simplified Procedure trial claiming damages for wrongful dismissal, breach of implied covenants, and damages under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Human Rights Code, alleging constructive dismissal or discrimination based on mental health.

The defendant, Jeff Lamb, argued the plaintiff resigned after refusing a reasonable accommodation.

The court found the plaintiff was not a reliable historian and that the accommodation offered by the defendant was reasonable.

The court concluded that the plaintiff had resigned and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff, a tire technician, sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal and discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code, alleging he was terminated because of his drug addiction.

The court found that the employer had accommodated the plaintiff's addiction and that the termination was instead the result of cumulative insubordination, workplace harassment, and a refusal to cooperate in a workplace violence investigation.

The human rights claim was dismissed.

However, because the employer chose to terminate without cause rather than for cause, the court awarded the plaintiff 2.5 months of reasonable notice, less the two weeks already paid under the Employment Standards Act, totaling $5,808.00.

The defendant was charged under s. 18(1) of the Dog Owner's Liability Act for an incident on March 22, 2012, in which a dog named Mac killed a cat named Barn Mother on a farm in the Municipality of West Elgin.

The defendant brought a Charter application alleging a violation of her right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding no unreasonable delay.

On the merits, the court found that the defendant was an "owner" of the dog under the Act, that the cat was a "domestic animal," and that the defendant failed to establish a due diligence defence.

The defendant was found guilty of the offence.