wrongful dismissal

The plaintiff, an Executive Director of a long-term care facility, was terminated for cause after 21 years of service following an investigation into an undisclosed romantic relationship with a subordinate manager.

The court found the employer failed to prove just cause, noting the relationship was condoned and the investigation was flawed and conducted in bad faith.

The plaintiff was awarded 22 months' notice, plus benefits and bonuses, less disability payments and mitigation income.

The court also awarded $50,000 in moral damages for the employer's bad faith conduct during the dismissal and litigation.

The defendant employer brought a motion to stay the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action, arguing the parties were bound by a mandatory arbitration clause in the plaintiff's employment contract.

The court first determined that the plaintiff, an insurance field agent, was an employee rather than an independent contractor.

The court then found that the second and third contracts, which introduced the arbitration clause, were invalid for lack of fresh consideration because they diminished the plaintiff's rights without providing any new benefit.

Consequently, the arbitration agreement was invalid under section 7(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, and the motion to stay the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal, human rights damages, and intentional infliction of mental suffering against his employer and its principal, as well as against a related corporation, claiming they were common employers.

The related corporation brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the action against it.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that this was not one of the rare cases where partial summary judgment is appropriate, as the claims against the moving party were factually intertwined with the claims against the other defendants, creating a material risk of inconsistent findings.

The plaintiff was successful on a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal, being awarded $208,448.64 in damages.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial and substantial indemnity basis, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The defendant argued costs should be denied because the action should have been pursued under the Simplified Procedure.

The court found the plaintiff beat his Rule 49 offer and that Rule 76.13 did not apply to deny costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs of $32,333.13, reducing the requested amount due to excessive time claimed.

The plaintiff sued his former employer for constructive dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and human rights damages, alleging he was forced out after taking a medical leave.

The employer argued the plaintiff voluntarily resigned and, alternatively, that there was just cause for termination because the plaintiff performed unauthorized side jobs for cash using company resources.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff was not constructively dismissed when the employer requested the return of his company vehicle and cellphone.

The court further held that even if he had been dismissed, the employer had just cause due to the plaintiff's breach of the duty of loyalty and misappropriation of company property.

The human rights claims were also dismissed.

The plaintiff, a minority shareholder and employee of a closely held construction management company, brought an action for wrongful dismissal and oppression after a contentious meeting where the majority shareholders claimed he resigned.

The court found the plaintiff was terminated without cause, as his emotional outburst did not constitute a clear and unequivocal resignation.

The court also found the majority shareholders engaged in oppressive conduct by unilaterally removing him as a director, withholding his shareholder loan, and failing to value his shares upon termination.

To rectify the oppression, the court valued the plaintiff's shares at the subsequent fiscal year-end, awarding $440,100 for the shares, $100,000 for pay in lieu of notice, and $75,000 in punitive damages for the defendants' high-handed conduct.

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 employee was terminated without cause and the employer refused to pay her contractual two weeks' severance unless she signed a full and final release.

The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal, arguing the employer repudiated the employment contract and that the termination provisions violated the Employment Standards Act.

The court found that the employer's demand for a release in exchange for contractual entitlements constituted a repudiation of the contract, entitling the plaintiff to common law reasonable notice.

The court awarded 6 months' notice, totaling $16,807.52 in damages.

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.

The plaintiff, a 73-year-old radio broadcaster with 20 years of service, was terminated without cause by the defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking 30 months' notice, while the defendant argued for 18 months and alleged a failure to mitigate.

The court awarded a 21-month notice period, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify exceeding 24 months.

The court also found that the defendant failed to prove the plaintiff did not mitigate his damages, considering his age, specialized skills, and serious medical issues following termination.

At a case conference, the plaintiff sought permission to bring a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendant objected, arguing that allegations of bad faith, mental distress, and discrimination created genuine issues for trial requiring credibility assessments.

The court permitted the plaintiff to proceed with the motion, noting that judges have powers to determine credibility and address contested facts under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and set a timetable for the motion.

The plaintiff, a warehouse attendant at a dairy distribution center, was terminated for cause after being caught on video vaping inside the facility.

The employer argued this violated company policies, food safety regulations, and the Smoke Free Ontario Act, 2017.

The court found that the employer failed to establish the plaintiff knew vaping was prohibited under the general no-smoking policy, as the policy did not explicitly mention vaping and the required statutory signage had not yet been posted.

The court concluded that termination was a disproportionate response and that progressive discipline should have been applied.

The plaintiff was awarded four months' pay in lieu of notice, less mitigation earnings.

The defendant municipality brought a motion under Rule 30.10 for the production of non-party records from the plaintiff's former employer.

The defendant alleged after-acquired cause for the plaintiff's termination, claiming he used confidential information during his recruitment.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing the defendant failed to meet the test for production.

The court granted the motion, finding the records were relevant to the pleadings and it would be unfair to require the defendant to proceed to discovery or trial without them.

The defendant employer brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and to strike several paragraphs from the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal Statement of Claim.

The impugned paragraphs alleged that the employer had provided more favourable severance and pension arrangements to other terminated employees.

The court granted the motion, setting aside the noting in default and striking the paragraphs under Rule 25.11.

The court held that the treatment of other terminated employees is irrelevant to the assessment of the plaintiff's individual damages and would unnecessarily delay and complicate the trial.

The plaintiff employee sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without cause.

He argued that an illegal 'Termination for Cause' clause in his employment agreement rendered the entire termination provision, including the 'Termination of Employment with Notice' clause, void and unenforceable.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the 'Termination of Employment with Notice' clause was a stand-alone provision that complied with the Employment Standards Act and was enforceable on its own terms.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, the defendant's cross-motion was granted, and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff, founder and former president of the defendant company, was terminated without cause three years after selling his shares to a purchaser.

The defendant relied on a termination provision and release signed at the time of the sale to limit his notice.

The court found the termination provision and release void for violating the Employment Standards Act by excluding his pre-sale years of service.

The court awarded the plaintiff 24 months of common law reasonable notice, including base salary, benefits, and lost bonus potential, but dismissed his claim for moral damages.

The plaintiff brought a motion to transfer his wrongful dismissal action from Toronto to Sarnia, citing the declining health of his wife who required his care.

The defendants opposed the transfer.

The court applied the holistic balancing test under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While acknowledging the plaintiff's caregiving responsibilities, the court noted that the other parties and counsel were located closer to Toronto, and the corporate defendant operated virtually.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish that Sarnia was a significantly better venue and dismissed the motion.

The defendants brought a motion to strike several causes of action from the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal and workplace harassment claim.

The court struck the claims against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, failure to provide a safe work environment, harassment, and discrimination under the Human Rights Code, finding they were not properly pleaded as independent torts or lacked material facts.

The claim against the employer for failure to provide a safe work environment was also struck.

The court allowed the claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering against one individual defendant to proceed.

The plaintiff was granted leave to amend the struck claims.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without cause.

The court found the plaintiff was a dependent contractor from 1994 to 2004 and an employee thereafter, entitling her to a 21-month reasonable notice period based on a 23-year relationship.

The employer's termination clause was held unenforceable for failing to maintain statutory benefits during the notice period.

The court awarded the plaintiff damages for pay in lieu of notice, loss of benefits, and reimbursement for unlawful wage deductions made under an unpaid vacation program.

The plaintiff employee, who had been on a prolonged medical leave of absence since 2012, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking termination and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, arguing his employment contract was frustrated due to illness.

The defendant employer argued frustration requires an act of the employer and denied the contract was frustrated.

The court held that frustration occurs as a matter of law when there is no reasonable likelihood of the employee returning to work, which occurred in October 2016 based on medical evidence.

The court granted summary judgment for the statutory entitlements but dismissed the plaintiff's claim for punitive and aggravated damages, finding the employer's conduct was not malicious.