The defendant corporation brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing an action for wrongful dismissal arising from the termination of a management consulting agreement.
The defendant alleged that the plaintiff consultant committed a “criminal act of dishonesty” by installing hidden surveillance cameras to intercept private communications at a company property, relying on a prior finding that the conduct breached s. 184(1) of the Criminal Code.
The court held that determining whether the criminal act constituted dishonesty within the contractual clause, and whether the act was intended to result in personal gain at the company’s expense, required a contextual assessment of intent and surrounding corporate conflict.
Given conflicting evidence regarding the plaintiff’s motives and the broader corporate struggle between board factions, the issues were unsuitable for determination on a summary judgment record.
A full trial was required to properly assess credibility and context.