3 total
The court awarded a senior executive 22 months' reasonable notice and applied Ontario employment standards to his California-based employment due to a choice-of-law clause.
The plaintiff sought summary judgment for wrongful dismissal damages after being terminated without cause.
The court found the employment agreement's termination clause to be unclear and incomplete, thus entitling the plaintiff to common law reasonable notice.
The court awarded 22 months' notice, determining the plaintiff held a senior executive role.
It also ruled that the Ontario Employment Standards Act applied to the calculation of lost benefits, despite the plaintiff working in California, due to an Ontario choice-of-law clause in the agreement, rejecting the defendant's public policy argument.
The valuation of lost benefits was deferred for further resolution, and mitigation income was partially offset by $30,000 USD.
Communications fulfilling an employer's statutory duty to investigate workplace harassment do not attract settlement privilege.
The defendant, SPS Commerce Canada Ltd., brought a motion to strike paragraphs 33 to 40 of the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, arguing they contained without prejudice settlement discussions protected by settlement privilege.
The plaintiff, Tricia Clayton, opposed the motion, distinguishing between settlement discussions regarding a severance package and communications related to the employer's statutory duty to investigate harassment allegations and a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).
The court found that the three conditions for settlement privilege were not met for the communications concerning the investigation and PIP, as these were factual and part of the employer's statutory obligations, not attempts to effect a settlement.
The motion to strike was dismissed.
Senior executive awarded 30 months' notice and full bonus entitlement during the notice period.
The plaintiff, a 62-year-old senior vice-president with 37 years of service, was terminated without cause.
On a motion for partial summary judgment, the court awarded a 30-month notice period, finding exceptional circumstances due to his age, tenure, and lack of comparable employment opportunities.
The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to full bonus payments under the company's Long Term and Short Term Incentive Plans during the notice period, as the forfeiture clauses were not properly communicated, were ambiguous, and violated the Employment Standards Act.
