wrongful dismissal

The plaintiff, a 52-year-old long-term employee of Air Canada, was terminated without cause due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

On a motion for summary judgment, the court awarded a 24-month reasonable notice period.

The court found the plaintiff was entitled to damages for lost group benefits, pension contributions, and potential 2021 bonus payments, as the employment contract did not unambiguously limit these common law rights.

Claims for travel privileges and a 25th-anniversary award were dismissed as they were non-contractual privileges.

The employer failed to prove the plaintiff did not reasonably mitigate her damages.

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 parties settled a wrongful dismissal action for $15,000 but could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought costs, while the defendant argued no costs should be awarded due to the plaintiff's conduct and the small settlement amount.

The court found the defendant fought the case aggressively and that a plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action should reasonably expect partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff $30,000 in costs, inclusive of a $3,000 deduction for the defendant's costs of finalizing the settlement.

The defendant employer brought a motion to transfer the plaintiff employee's wrongful dismissal action to Small Claims Court.

The plaintiff's statement of claim sought $173,000 in damages arising from an alleged constructive dismissal related to the employer's COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff had mitigated his damages and that the remaining claims lacked an 'air of reality', bringing the true value within the Small Claims Court limit of $35,000.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that it could not conduct a preliminary merits test to reduce the claim's value and deprive the plaintiff of his chosen forum.

Following a successful wrongful dismissal action under the simplified procedure, the plaintiff sought costs of over $100,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued the claimed costs were disproportionate to the $98,576 damages awarded and the simplified procedure limits.

The court found the plaintiff's counsel's hours and rates unreasonable for a straightforward wrongful dismissal action.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $55,000 for fees and $9,000 for disbursements, plus HST.

The defendant brought an unsuccessful motion for summary dismissal of the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff sought costs of $28,000, while the defendant argued for costs in the cause or fixed at $5,000.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity scale, noting the motion was important but relatively uncomplicated.

Costs were fixed at $13,560 inclusive of HST.

Following a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action where the plaintiff recovered $17,587.11, both parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought $35,000 in partial indemnity costs, while the defendant sought $17,387.88 in costs thrown away.

The court noted that both parties had advanced and subsequently abandoned serious, unsubstantiated allegations during the litigation.

Given the conduct of both parties and the plaintiff's recovery falling within the Small Claims Court monetary jurisdiction, the court ordered no costs to either party.

The plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action was dismissed on consent after it was determined that, as a unionized employee, his claims were governed by a collective agreement and could not be adjudicated in court.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $46,544.75.

The court found the requested costs excessive given the straightforward nature of the jurisdictional issue and the plaintiff's likely impecuniosity.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 all-inclusive.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding her termination.

After her position became redundant, the parties agreed to ten weeks of working notice.

The employer breached this agreement after five weeks, alleging job abandonment, and the trial judge awarded the appellant the remaining five weeks' pay.

On appeal, the appellant argued the agreement lacked consideration and its breach constituted rescission entitling her to common law notice.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the agreement valid and the breach a repudiation rather than rescission, as the appellant had already received half the benefit of the contract.

Following a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action where the plaintiff was awarded approximately $97,500, the parties made submissions on costs.

The defendant had made an early Rule 49 offer to settle for $107,000, which the plaintiff did not accept.

Because the plaintiff recovered less than the defendant's offer, the court applied Rule 49.10(2) and awarded the defendant its partial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $27,000 in costs to the defendant.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion for summary judgment.

At a case conference, the parties agreed not to proceed with the summary judgment motion at this time and consented to a timetable for mediation, documentary discovery, and oral discovery.

The court established the timetable and remained seized of any scheduling issues, noting it was too early to determine if a streamlined trial procedure would be appropriate.

The applicant, a 36-year-old controller with six years of service, was terminated without cause.

The employer paid her statutory entitlements under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) and relied on the termination clause in her employment contract to deny common law notice.

The applicant brought an application arguing the termination clause was void.

The court found that the 'for cause' provision violated the ESA by allowing termination without notice for common law cause, which is a lower standard than the ESA's 'willful misconduct' standard.

Applying Waksdale, the court held that this rendered the entire termination clause void.

The court also found the 'without cause' provision independently violated the ESA by excluding benefits and bonuses during the notice period.

The court awarded the applicant 10 months of common law notice, less mitigation earnings and statutory amounts already paid.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion on the eve of trial to compel the defendant employer to produce communications between its internal legal counsel and a third-party workplace investigator.

The defendant argued the motion was barred by Rule 48.04 as the action had been set down for trial, and asserted privilege over the documents.

The court held that leave was not required because the motion sought to enforce a prior production order.

The court further rejected the defendant's claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege, ordering the production of the withheld communications within five days.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the defendant brought an eve-of-trial motion to adjourn the trial and compel further disclosure and discovery regarding the plaintiff's mitigation efforts through his corporation.

The plaintiff had previously answered 'zero' when asked about personal income from the corporation, but recently produced a ledger showing significant shareholder loan repayments.

The court granted leave for the motion, finding the plaintiff had an ongoing obligation to correct misleading discovery answers.

The court ordered limited additional documentary production and a brief discovery, but declined to adjourn the trial, directing that the discovery be completed before the trial commenced the following week.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing his wrongful dismissal action for delay.

The court applied the contextual test for setting aside administrative dismissals, balancing the explanation for delay, inadvertence, timeliness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendant.

Finding that the plaintiff adequately explained the delay, moved promptly to set aside the order, and that the defendant suffered no actual prejudice, the court granted the motion and set aside the dismissal order.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal, the plaintiff sought $60,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The defendant argued the amount was excessive and proposed $39,519.26.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the plaintiff's success and the moderate complexity of the matter.

Finding the plaintiff's counsel's hourly rate and hours spent to be somewhat high, the court fixed costs at $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) seeking an order for the payment of a volume bonus commission prior to trial in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff sought leave to introduce extensive affidavit evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the interpretation of the employment agreement in light of alleged code of conduct breaches raised a question of mixed fact and law, not a pure question of law.

The court noted the motion was effectively an improper attempt to bypass the procedural requirements of a Rule 20 summary judgment motion, including mandatory attendance at Civil Practice Court, and warned against the risks of partial summary judgment.

Following a trial where the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed and the defendants' counterclaim was partially allowed, the defendants sought costs of $39,364.74.

The defendants had made three reasonable offers to settle, all of which they beat at trial.

The court awarded the defendants costs fixed at $20,000, representing approximately 50% of full recovery, noting that the defendants were the more successful and reasonable party.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion to strike two paragraphs of the defendant's statement of defence, arguing they improperly referred to a without prejudice termination offer.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that because the plaintiff pleaded bad faith and claimed punitive damages regarding the defendant's conduct at termination, the defendant was entitled to plead the termination offer to answer those allegations.

The termination offer was deemed relevant and an exception to settlement privilege applied.

The plaintiff successfully defended a motion brought by the defendant to strike portions of his wrongful dismissal claim.

The plaintiff subsequently sought costs of $9,227.45 for the motion.

The defendant argued that no costs should be awarded because the plaintiff had previously abused the process of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario by withdrawing a related application at the last minute.

The court agreed with the defendant, finding that the plaintiff's conduct before the tribunal wasted public and private resources.

Exercising its discretion under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court declined to award costs to the successful plaintiff.