wrongful dismissal

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 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.

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.

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 plaintiff, a 69-year-old esthetician, was terminated without cause after working for the defendant and its predecessor for 20 years.

The court found the termination clause in her employment agreement unenforceable due to a lack of fresh consideration.

Recognizing her prior service with the bankrupt predecessor employer, the court awarded a total notice period of 10 months, less the working notice already provided, resulting in 7.25 months' pay in lieu of notice.

Claims for aggravated damages, punitive damages, and age discrimination were dismissed.

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.

The applicant, a 61-year-old senior draftsperson with 3.5 years of service, was terminated without cause.

The employer relied on a termination clause in the employment agreement to limit his entitlements.

The court applied the Waksdale framework, finding the 'for cause' provision violated the Employment Standards Act by contracting out of the statutory 'wilful misconduct' standard, thereby rendering all termination provisions void.

The court awarded 6 months of common law reasonable notice based on the Bardal factors and dismissed the employer's argument that the applicant failed to mitigate his damages.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' $20 million claim arising from the revocation of the plaintiff's aviation delegation.

The court struck the claims for conspiracy, breach of contract, injurious falsehood, negligence, wrongful dismissal, and intentional interference with contractual relations for failing to plead necessary elements, but granted leave to amend.

The court declined to strike the claim for misfeasance in public office, finding it adequately pleaded, and dismissed the defendants' motion to strike portions of the claim as scandalous or an abuse of process.

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 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 plaintiffs were successful in their wrongful dismissal actions against the defendant and sought full indemnity costs capped at $50,000 each under Rule 76.12.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendant argued the costs claimed were disproportionate and excessive.

The court agreed with the defendant, finding the cases were simple, materially identical, and handled by common counsel, which should have resulted in substantial efficiencies.

The court rejected the claim for full indemnity costs and awarded a total of $50,000 inclusive of HST for both claims combined, plus disbursements, resulting in $26,117.08 for each plaintiff.

During a wrongful dismissal trial, the plaintiff objected to the defendant adducing evidence of financial irregularities, arguing the defendant breached the rule in Browne and Dunn by failing to confront her with this evidence during cross-examination.

The court dismissed the objection, finding the defendant had generally met its obligations as the plaintiff was well aware of the allegations from pleadings and discovery.

The court held that the appropriate remedy for any specific transactions not put to the plaintiff would be to recall her to testify, rather than excluding the defendant's evidence.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants for unpaid commissions and wrongful dismissal.

The individual plaintiff initially provided services through his corporation as a dependent contractor before becoming a full-time employee.

The court granted default judgment, awarding the corporate plaintiff unpaid commissions and bonuses in USD.

The court also found the individual plaintiff was a dependent contractor whose prior service counted towards his length of employment, awarding him 6 months' pay in lieu of notice, less mitigation.

A claim for bad faith damages was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a 61-year-old professional engineer, brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action against his employer of approximately 26 years.

The court determined that despite a brief break in service where the plaintiff acted as an independent consultant, his employment should be viewed holistically.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded a 24-month notice period, subject to a two-week contingency deduction for future mitigation.

The court declined to award damages for lost bonuses, finding no evidence that bonuses would likely be paid during the notice period due to the pandemic.

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 brought a motion in writing for default judgment against his former employer for wrongful dismissal.

The court first determined that the action was not statute-barred because the limitation period was suspended under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court noted the defendant in default and found the plaintiff was entitled to damages in lieu of reasonable notice.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded a 20-month notice period, resulting in damages of $91,667.00, without deductions for mitigation income as the employer failed to meet its burden of proof.

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.