Kevin Dennis MacNeill

The defendant employer brought a motion to dismiss or permanently stay an employment action on grounds of lack of jurisdiction or forum non conveniens.

The plaintiff, a former employee, commenced an action in Ontario alleging breach of contract, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and discriminatory treatment arising from her dismissal without notice.

The defendant argued that the action should be stayed in favor of Manitoba courts, where the plaintiff was employed and where the alleged misconduct occurred.

The court found that a forum selection clause in the plaintiff's original employment contract with Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL) designated Ontario as the exclusive jurisdiction and remained enforceable against the defendant, a wholly-owned subsidiary of AECL that assumed the plaintiff's employment.

The court also found that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter based on multiple presumptive connecting factors.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 56.01(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order requiring the plaintiff, a resident of the United States, to post security for costs in a wrongful dismissal action.

The court considered the plaintiff’s financial circumstances, the stage of the litigation, and the apparent merits of the claim.

Evidence indicated the plaintiff had limited financial resources and that his financial situation may have been affected by the defendants’ conduct in relocating him to Canada for employment.

The court found the claim possessed some merit and that requiring substantial security could effectively terminate the litigation and undermine access to justice.

In the circumstances, the court declined to order security for costs.

The appellant employer appealed a conviction under s. 25(1)(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a workplace accident where a worker fell more than three metres from a sawmill catwalk while clearing a conveyor jam without fall arrest protection.

The trial court had acquitted the employer on a guardrail-related charge but convicted on a fall-arrest charge.

On appeal, the employer argued the trial judge made inconsistent findings on foreseeability and lacked evidence supporting the conclusion that workers would cross the guardrail to access the conveyor.

The Superior Court held that the trial judge’s reasoning distinguished between the guardrail and fall-arrest charges and properly found that accessing the conveyor to clear jam-ups was foreseeable.

The court concluded that the employer failed to establish due diligence because it did not implement reasonable safety precautions or training requiring fall arrest protection.

The conviction was upheld.