wrongful dismissal

The plaintiff, a senior area supervisor with nearly 30 years of service, brought an action for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for cause.

The employer alleged the plaintiff breached company policies regarding conflicts of interest, markdowns, and ethical conduct, including failing to disclose a relationship with a cleaning contractor and improperly discounting furniture for himself and friends.

The court found the plaintiff engaged in serious misconduct, including fraud and breach of trust, which went to the core of the employment relationship.

Applying the McKinley proportionality test, the court concluded the employer had just cause for summary dismissal and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff, a 58-year-old medical assistant with 35 years of service, sued her former employer for wrongful dismissal after being placed on an indefinite layoff following the death of the doctor she primarily worked for.

The employer argued she was only temporarily laid off and failed to mitigate by refusing single shifts.

The court found the unilateral layoff constituted constructive dismissal, as the employer had no contractual right to lay her off.

The court awarded a 22-month notice period and found no failure to mitigate, as the single shifts offered were substantially different from her prior regular schedule.

The plaintiff moved for default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff was hired under a fixed-term contract that classified him as an independent contractor.

The court found that the plaintiff was misclassified and was in fact an employee or dependent contractor.

The court also held that the termination clause in the contract was unenforceable because its 'for cause' provision violated the Employment Standards Act.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for the balance of the fixed-term contract, unpaid wages, vacation pay, and holiday pay, but claims for punitive and moral damages were dismissed.

The plaintiff, in a wrongful dismissal and age discrimination action, brought a motion to compel answers to discovery refusals and undertakings.

The court ordered the defendant to answer questions regarding the age and termination status of other senior management team members, finding them relevant to the defendant's pleadings.

However, the court dismissed requests for the recruitment file of a replacement executive director and notes from an in camera board meeting, finding the former irrelevant and the latter protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence after the defendant repeatedly delayed and ultimately failed to attend scheduled examinations for discovery.

Despite a prior court order mandating the completion of discoveries by a set date and warning of consequences for further non-attendance, the defendant refused to proceed unless it could examine the plaintiff first, contrary to the plaintiff's notice of examination.

The court found the defendant's conduct to be a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings and struck the statement of defence pursuant to Rules 34.15(1)(b) and 60.12.

The defendants brought a motion to withdraw an admission made in their Statement of Defence regarding the plaintiff's entitlement to common law reasonable notice.

The plaintiff opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to strike portions of the defendants' motion record.

The court applied the three-part test for withdrawing an admission and found that there was a triable issue regarding the enforceability of the termination provision, the admission was made in error, and the withdrawal would not cause non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff.

The motion to withdraw the admission was granted.

The plaintiff was entitled to costs for the cross-motion, but the court offset these against the defendants' costs for the main motion, ordering each party to bear their own costs.

The plaintiff, a former managing director at the defendant bank, brought a motion to amend his statement of claim in a wrongful dismissal action.

He sought to add claims for unjust enrichment and disgorgement of profits, alleging the bank earned investment income on his withheld incentive compensation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amendments disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the unjust enrichment claim failed because there was no corresponding deprivation to the plaintiff, and the disgorgement claim failed because damages for breach of contract were an adequate remedy.

The plaintiff, a 16-year employee on long-term disability, was advised her employment was terminated due to corporate restructuring and offered a demoted position at a lower salary.

She accepted the new position to mitigate her damages and sued for wrongful dismissal.

On a motion for summary judgment, the court found she was wrongfully dismissed and awarded 18 months' notice based on her pre-termination salary.

The court held that the employer was not entitled to deduct the long-term disability benefits from the damages award because the plaintiff had contributed to the insurance premiums.

Claims for bad faith and discrimination damages were dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to compel answers to five questions refused by the plaintiff during an examination for discovery in a wrongful dismissal and breach of contract action.

The refused questions related to the income tax returns of the plaintiff's wife, the financial statements of a family trust, and details regarding the plaintiff's pension from a previous employer.

The court upheld all five refusals, finding the requested information either irrelevant to the pleadings or too far removed to warrant disclosure.

The defendants were ordered to pay costs of $6,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

Following a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action, the parties were unable to agree on the calculation of damages based on the court's methodology.

The plaintiff brought a motion to determine the amount of damages.

The court largely accepted the employer's calculation of unpaid commissions and average salary, finding it consistent with the employment contract and the court's previous reasons.

The court awarded the plaintiff total damages of $25,573.98, comprising unpaid commissions, unpaid bonuses, and notice period damages.

Following a successful application for wrongful dismissal where the applicant was awarded ten months' notice, the parties could not agree on costs.

The applicant sought $74,524.59 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the respondent argued for partial indemnity costs of approximately $30,000.

The court found that neither party's offers to settle triggered Rule 49.10 and that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis for the application, a motion to amend, and an abandoned motion to compel, fixing the total all-inclusive costs at $47,000.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action requested a case conference to schedule a summary judgment motion and establish a timetable.

The defendant opposed, arguing the case was not appropriate for summary judgment due to issues regarding the start date, mitigation, and claims for general and punitive damages.

The court agreed with the defendant, finding that a summary trial was more appropriate than a summary judgment motion, and established a timetable leading to a two-day summary trial.

During a wrongful dismissal trial, the plaintiff sought disclosure of a recording of a closed municipal council meeting where her termination was discussed.

The defendants claimed solicitor-client, settlement, litigation, and confidential communications privilege.

Applying the Wigmore criteria, the court ordered partial disclosure.

The portion of the recording where the CAO justified the termination decision was ordered disclosed, as the benefit to the litigation outweighed the injury to the municipal relationship.

However, portions involving legal advice, anticipated negotiations, and council questions remained privileged.

The plaintiff successfully resisted the defendant employer's motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendant had sought to enforce an alleged pre-litigation settlement but failed to establish that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs of the motion on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $17,000, noting the strategic risk and power imbalance inherent in motion practice in wrongful dismissal actions.

The plaintiff, a 62-year-old former Director of Product Design and Development with 11.65 years of service, sued for wrongful dismissal after his employment was terminated.

The court applied the Bardal factors and awarded a 16-month reasonable notice period, including base salary, unpaid bonus, benefits, and pension contributions.

The plaintiff's claim for bad faith damages, based on the employer's late disclosure of a superseding employment contract, was dismissed as the conduct did not meet the required threshold.

The plaintiff sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal following an asset sale of the business.

He claimed entitlement to 12 months' notice under his employment agreement due to a change in control.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by unreasonably rejecting an offer of comparable employment from the purchasing company.

Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff had fully mitigated his damages through earnings generated by his own corporation during the notice period.

The self-represented plaintiff moved for leave to amend his statement of claim to add several new causes of action and for further documentary production from the defendant bank.

The court denied most of the proposed amendments, finding them to be statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, or untenable based on prior court rulings.

However, the court allowed amendments related to bad faith referencing, intentional interference with economic relations, breach of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The court also ordered the defendant to produce certain documents related to the allowed claims, while denying production of other requested documents.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.

The defendant employer brought a motion to strike paragraphs from the plaintiff employee's wrongful dismissal Statement of Claim, arguing they improperly disclosed privileged settlement offers.

The plaintiff argued the offers were threats relevant to his claim for bad faith and punitive damages.

The court found there was a triable issue regarding the characterization of the offers, applying an 'air of reality' test.

However, the court struck the impugned paragraphs with leave to amend because they improperly pleaded evidence rather than material facts.

The plaintiff, a manager with 30 years of service, was summarily dismissed after slapping a female subordinate's buttocks in front of other male colleagues.

The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal, claiming the touching was accidental and a joke.

The court applied the McKinley contextual analysis and found that the plaintiff's conduct constituted serious sexual harassment.

The court held that the plaintiff's lack of remorse and failure to understand the seriousness of his actions irreparably breached the employment relationship.

The action was dismissed, with the court finding the employer had just cause for termination.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment seeking damages for wrongful dismissal after the defendant failed to deliver a statement of defence.

The plaintiff, a 60-year-old office manager with 12 years of service, was terminated for alleged cause, which he denied.

The court found the plaintiff was terminated without cause and awarded 24 months' salary in lieu of notice, plus vacation pay and benefits, totaling $157,645.

The court also ordered the defendant to amend the plaintiff's Record of Employment to reflect dismissal without cause and awarded substantial indemnity costs.