wrongful dismissal

The defendant employer moved for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action and the plaintiff employee brought a cross-motion for summary judgment.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, fixed reasonable notice at 24 months for a 28-year retail management employee, and rejected the employer’s mitigation defence despite a delayed job search, given the pandemic, the employee’s depression, and extensive later applications.

The court further held that the employer breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing in the manner of dismissal by escorting the employee out, presenting a misleading post-termination offer, failing to comply with statutory lump-sum payment obligations, and issuing an untimely and inaccurate record of employment.

Damages were awarded for notice, replacement benefits, pension contributions, moral damages, and punitive damages.

Following an earlier summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action, the court released an addendum addressing inadvertent errors, the employee's entitlement to bonus compensation during the common law notice period, mitigation deductions, and costs.

Applying the governing appellate authorities on bonus entitlement, the court held that an active employment requirement did not unambiguously remove the employee's right to damages in lieu of bonus during the notice period where the bonus was an integral part of compensation.

The court calculated the future bonus component by averaging the employee's bonuses over the prior three years, deducted a comparable vehicle benefit obtained in replacement employment, and fixed total damages at $178,879.98.

Partial indemnity costs plus disbursements were awarded in the amount of $43,879.63.

The plaintiff, a long-serving senior accounting manager, alleged constructive dismissal after a merger-driven reorganization removed core payroll, budgeting, and accounts payable responsibilities and left her with an uncertain role.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s constructive dismissal framework, the court held that the employer had unilaterally and substantially altered essential terms of employment and had also, viewed cumulatively, evinced an intention no longer to be bound by the contract.

On damages, the court held that ESA termination and severance entitlements were payable and that mitigation income earned during the statutory entitlement period could not be deducted from the common law award.

The court also awarded relocation-related mitigation expenses, including sale, purchase, moving, and transitional costs, in the amount of $45,010.32, together with pre-judgment interest.

A senior executive sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for alleged financial fraud, while the employer counterclaimed in civil fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty arising from accounting treatment, inventory reserves, and intercompany transfers.

The court found the employer failed to prove the alleged dishonest conduct, failed to substantiate its fraud theory through direct witnesses or documentary support, and did not establish just cause.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court fixed reasonable notice at 19 months and awarded salary, bonus, benefits, RRSP contributions, punitive damages, and moral damages.

The counterclaims for civil fraud and unjust enrichment were dismissed.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action arising from a temporary lay-off that was not expressly permitted by the written employment contract.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, but rejected the plaintiff's position that the lay-off became constructive dismissal either when imposed or when counsel later purported to treat it as such.

The court found the plaintiff had acquiesced in the lay-off, remained in the employment relationship when the employer recalled him to full-time work, and could not then characterize the lay-off as constructive dismissal.

In the unusual circumstances, the court held the written notice provisions had effectively been displaced and awarded wrongful dismissal damages only for the period from the lay-off to the date the plaintiff commenced higher-paying replacement employment.

The plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal action arising from the closure of automobile dealerships after General Motors discontinued franchise relationships.

He alleged inducement, common employer liability, unpaid bonus and salary amounts, disability-related entitlements, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and aggravated and punitive damages.

The court rejected the plaintiff's evidence on most disputed facts, found no common employer relationship, no unpaid bonus entitlement, no compensable mental suffering, and no basis for aggravated or punitive damages.

Applying the Bardal factors, and taking into account an undertaking that prior seniority would be recognized, the court awarded 20 weeks of pay in lieu of notice, less statutory amounts already paid and mitigation income earned during the notice period.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration of wrongful dismissal and damages in lieu of reasonable notice, together with unpaid commissions.

The court held that partial summary judgment was appropriate because the material facts concerning employment history, income, and circumstances of discharge were largely undisputed, while the remaining counterclaim and oppression issues did not affect the dismissal determination.

The asserted grounds for cause, namely appearing at a trade show under another business name and failing to "redouble" efforts, did not amount to cause.

The court declared the dismissal wrongful and held the plaintiff was entitled to one year's salary, with costs fixed at $20,000.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion arising from a without-cause dismissal after 16 years of service as a specialized national account sales representative in the corrugated packaging and recycling industry.

Applying the reasonable notice factors, the court fixed notice at 16 months, emphasizing the employee’s age, lengthy service, specialized role, and the limited availability of comparable employment in a narrow industry.

The court rejected a claim for an enhanced 2012 bonus based on alleged unilateral changes to bonus criteria, but held that the bonus plan was an integral part of compensation during the notice period and awarded damages for bonus, group insurance benefits, pension contributions, and car allowance.

The court also rejected the employer’s mitigation defence and granted summary judgment for $131,515.35.

On a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action, the court held that the employer had not clearly contracted out of the employee's common law entitlement to reasonable notice through its employment offer or internal separation policy.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court fixed reasonable notice at 10 months for a 60-year-old senior managing consultant with approximately eight years of service whose position was eliminated.

The court rejected the employer's mitigation defence, finding the employee's job search and subsequent move to self-employment were reasonable.

Damages were awarded for salary, pension contributions, and replacement benefits, less amounts already paid.

In this wrongful dismissal action, the defendant employer renewed a motion seeking production of a limited set of personal email messages related to the plaintiff's part-time real estate business, answers to refused discovery questions, and a further attendance for discovery.

The court held that the renewed request materially differed from an earlier unsuccessful motion because the request was narrower, compliance would be far less onerous, and amended pleadings now made the requested emails clearly relevant to specific allegations of dishonesty and breach of duty.

The court rejected res judicata and issue estoppel, emphasizing that relevance is defined by the pleadings and that amended pleadings changed the question to be decided.

Applying proportionality, the court found the limited production reasonable in light of the now more substantial claim and granted the requested relief.

In three related wrongful dismissal actions, the employer sought consolidation to reduce duplicative discovery while the plaintiffs were pursuing summary judgment motions.

The court expressed concern that the parties' motion practice might be obscuring the real dispute about the scope of necessary discovery and emphasized efficiency, affordability, and proportionality.

A timetable was set for delivery of motion materials, identification of proposed cross-examinations and summonses, and a further case conference at which consolidation, hearing together, and the scope of examinations could be addressed.

In this costs endorsement following an employment dispute, the plaintiffs argued they had beaten the defendant's collective settlement offer, while the defendant sought costs consequences under rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the offer should not determine costs, emphasizing that the defendant had lost the fundamental issues at trial and had pursued an uncompromising litigation position inconsistent with the settlement-promoting purpose of the rule.

The court declined to award any costs to the defendant and instead awarded the plaintiffs $42,000, reduced to reflect their limited success on the length of the notice period.

The defendant employer moved to strike portions of an amended statement of claim in a wrongful dismissal action on the basis that they pleaded privileged settlement communications.

The court applied the three-part settlement privilege framework and held that litigation was not contemplated until defence counsel became involved in November 2011.

Allegations reflecting unconditional assertions of contractual rights or the defendant’s actual legal position were not protected, but paragraphs expressly referring to attempts to resolve the sabbatical issue on a without prejudice basis during the litigious period were privileged.

The motion was granted only in part, with two paragraphs struck and leave to redraft.

The defendants moved to strike portions of a wrongful dismissal pleading alleging systemic misconduct toward former employees and dependent contractors, and references to defence counsel, on the basis that the allegations were scandalous, irrelevant, prejudicial, and would unduly expand discovery.

The court held that a dependent contractor is entitled to the same common law protections as an employee at dismissal and that systemic wrongdoing allegations may properly support a punitive damages claim in an employment termination context if pleaded with sufficient detail.

The court also rejected the argument that references to counsel were inherently improper, finding no immunity from scrutiny where counsel's conduct is pleaded as part of the factual narrative.

The motions were dismissed and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the plaintiff in the test case.

The plaintiffs, long-time kitchen cabinet delivery and installation workers who had been reclassified from employees to purported independent contractors in 1987, sought damages after termination without notice.

The court held that the relationship fell within the intermediate category of dependant contractors, emphasizing the plaintiffs’ near exclusivity, the defendant’s effective control, the integration of their work into the defendant’s business, and the absence of any real entrepreneurial opportunity.

Having regard to their long prior service and the overall relationship, the court awarded 26 months’ reasonable notice damages.

The action against one incorrectly named corporate defendant was dismissed without costs.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the moving party sought production of all documents relating to an external investigation conducted by a lawyer after a nursing home resident's death.

The court held that the investigation materials, including the report, were not protected by solicitor-client privilege because the retainer and surrounding circumstances showed the investigator was acting primarily as an independent fact-finder rather than providing legal advice in a solicitor-client relationship.

The court further found litigation privilege did not apply because there was no evidence that litigation against the moving party was contemplated when the investigation was undertaken.

Production was ordered subject to redaction of personal and health information, and costs were awarded to the moving party.

On a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action, the court held that a series of annual teacher contracts and letters of appointment at a private school did not create fixed-term employment.

Reading the contracts as a whole, and construing ambiguity against the employer, the court found the arrangements contemplated ongoing employment and were contracts of indefinite duration.

The teachers were therefore entitled to common law reasonable notice.

Applying the Bardal factors in light of the school's financial instability, recurring enrolment uncertainty, and the teachers' awareness of that context, the court fixed notice at six months and rejected both mitigation-based reductions and claims for bad faith damages.

In a wrongful dismissal trial involving an employer's just cause defence, the plaintiff moved for directions altering the ordinary order of proof and limiting cross-examination until later stages of the trial.

The court held that departures from the general rule against case splitting are discretionary and reserved for unusual cases where principle and convenience clearly justify modification.

Because the plaintiff had extensive disclosure of the misconduct allegations and the damages issues were intertwined with the just cause defence, the proposed staged procedure risked confusion, inefficiency, and procedural unfairness.

The motion was dismissed and the trial was directed to proceed in the ordinary manner.

The appellant union filed grievances on behalf of two employees (one casual, one probationary) who were dismissed.

The collective agreement denied them access to the grievance procedure for dismissals.

The union argued that the public order standard in s. 124 of the Act respecting labour standards, which prohibits dismissal without good and sufficient cause after two years of service, was implicitly incorporated into the collective agreement, giving the arbitrator jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the standard is not implicitly incorporated, the public order nature of the Act renders the collective agreement clauses denying arbitration absolutely null.

Consequently, the grievance arbitrator has jurisdiction to hear the complaints and provide a recourse equivalent to that of the Commission des relations du travail.

The respondent employee, who suffered from chronic fatigue syndrome, was terminated after refusing to meet with an occupational medicine specialist chosen by the appellant employer to assess his disability and accommodation needs.

The trial judge found the employee was wrongfully dismissed, awarded 15 months' notice, extended the notice period to 24 months for bad faith in the manner of dismissal (Wallace damages), and awarded $500,000 in punitive damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the wrongful dismissal and Wallace damages, but reduced the punitive damages to $100,000.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the employer's appeal in part, upholding the 15-month notice period but setting aside the Wallace and punitive damages.

The Court held that damages for the manner of dismissal should be assessed under the Hadley v. Baxendale principle rather than by arbitrarily extending the notice period, and found no bad faith or independently actionable wrong to justify aggravated or punitive damages.