wrongful dismissal

The appellants were employed by the Toronto Humane Society.

They repeatedly refused to implement the Society's new policies regarding the intake of stray animals, citing concerns about the legality of the policies.

After multiple meetings and legal opinions confirming the Society's authority, the appellants continued to refuse to perform their duties and were terminated.

The trial judge dismissed their wrongful dismissal actions, finding they were dismissed for cause.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, concluding that the appellants' unequivocal refusals to perform essential job duties amounted to a repudiation of their employment contracts, which the employer was entitled to accept.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's dismissal of his action for damages for breach of contract and wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge had concluded there was no employment relationship between the parties.

The Court of Appeal found no grounds to interfere with the trial judge's reasons or result and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The appellant, a woman of colour, sued her former employer for constructive dismissal, alleging racial discrimination.

The motions judge struck paragraphs of her statement of claim that alleged systemic discrimination against employees of colour, holding that only discriminatory acts directed specifically at the appellant could be pleaded.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding no principled basis to distinguish between direct discrimination and systemic discrimination for the purpose of pleading discriminatory conduct to support a wrongful dismissal claim.

The respondent, a 25-year employee of the appellant Board, was summarily dismissed for using his position to obtain a direct monetary benefit.

He had purchased computers at a discount from a registered employer and accepted a $1,000 payment from an employer representative, subsequently lying about these events during the employer's investigation.

The trial judge found the dismissal was wrongful and awarded 24 months' notice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the action, finding the trial judge erred by failing to apply the correct legal standard from McKinley v. B.C. Tel and by not considering the full extent of the respondent's misconduct.

The Court held that the respondent's intentional and repeated dishonest acts constituted a fundamental breach of his employment obligations, justifying summary dismissal.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding it had constructively dismissed the respondent employee and awarding damages including amounts for broker warrants and interest on capital.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of constructive dismissal, agreeing that the employer's demand that the employee share his role as head of the corporate finance department constituted a fundamental change to his employment contract.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the damages awarded for broker warrants because they had no value on the termination date, and setting aside the award of interest on the employee's capital because the shareholder agreement expressly precluded it.

The appellants, commissioned sales representatives, were presented with a new employment contract by their employer, LICC, which reduced commissions and introduced minimum production levels.

When the appellants refused to sign the new agreement, LICC terminated their employment.

The trial judge dismissed their wrongful dismissal action, finding they breached their contract by refusing to acknowledge LICC's managerial authority to change the commission plan.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellants were employees, not independent contractors, and were entitled to reasonable notice of termination.

The Court found that the appellants had no obligation to accept the new agreement or acknowledge the employer's right to make unilateral changes, and their refusal did not constitute just cause for dismissal.

The Court also held that the employer failed to meet its burden of proving the appellants failed to mitigate their damages.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal claim against his former employer.

The trial judge had found that the appellant resigned when he stated he could not work for a rival who was appointed president.

The Court of Appeal overturned the finding of resignation, concluding the appellant was wrongfully dismissed.

However, the Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the nine-month notice period was reasonable, that the appellant suffered no damages for lost income because he mitigated his losses with higher-paying subsequent employment, and that the unambiguous language of the employer's stock option plans precluded the appellant from exercising options that would have vested during the notice period.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action, arguing that the employer's unilateral changes to his employment contract invalidated the termination clause.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the changes were not fundamental and had been condoned by the appellant.

Furthermore, the Court found that the appellant was estopped from claiming more than six months' notice, as he had accepted the six months offered at termination without objection.

The employers appealed a trial judgment awarding the plaintiff damages for wrongful dismissal.

The employers argued the plaintiff was dismissed for just cause because she gave herself and another employee unauthorized salary and vacation pay increases.

The trial judge found the conduct was an indiscretion rather than dishonesty and served as a pretext for a planned dismissal.

Applying the McKinley contextual analysis, the trial judge concluded the employers failed to prove just cause.

The Court of Appeal upheld this finding.

The plaintiff's cross-appeal on damages and the employers' appeal on the dismissed counterclaim were also dismissed.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding it lacked just cause to terminate the respondent employee.

The employee, a senior manager, had arranged for a company supplier to construct a fence and pool at his home but failed to document payment as required by the employer's Integrity Code.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in interpreting the Code.

The employee's failure to document payment and the resulting conflict of interest compromised the employment relationship, providing just cause for termination.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that the respondent was wrongfully dismissed and not terminated for cause.

The appellant argued there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the trial judge and that the judge erred in assessing credibility and damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, no error in the credibility assessment, and no reason to interfere with the damages award.

The appellant was terminated from her employment of 15.5 years while dealing with medical issues.

The trial judge found the employer acted in bad faith and initially awarded 12 months' notice, which she later increased to 16 months after being informed of a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The appellant appealed the notice period and the dismissal of her claim for aggravated and punitive damages.

The respondent cross-appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in increasing the notice period after learning of the settlement offer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding the 16-month notice period was within a reasonable range and that a trial judge has broad discretion to alter a judgment before it is formally entered.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action, arguing the judge erred in finding just cause for termination.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's contextual approach, agreeing that the appellant's unauthorized store closure, false reports of staff resignations, and prolonged insubordination justified dismissal without notice.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding the quantum of trial costs was also dismissed, as the trial judge appropriately exercised his discretion under Rule 57.01.

The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The appellant employee signed an agreement authorizing the respondent employer to make deductions from his wages for cash shortages, despite others having access to the cash.

This contravened the Regulations under the Employment Standards Act.

When the appellant subsequently refused to work under this arrangement, the respondent treated his refusal as a resignation.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant's refusal was justified in law and that treating it as a resignation constituted wrongful dismissal.

The appeal was allowed in part, awarding the appellant agreed damages for lost wages, but dismissing claims for aggravated damages and other torts.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding that a 1990 written employment contract no longer applied to the respondent employee due to a fundamental change in the nature of his job.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion that the respondent's responsibilities, remuneration, and title had dramatically changed.

The court also upheld the award for vacation pay.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding claims for an obligatory bonus, a savings bonus, and 1996 vacation pay was also dismissed, as the trial judge's factual findings on these issues revealed no palpable and overriding error.

The appellants appealed a wrongful dismissal judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that an employee manual could not eliminate the respondent's entitlement to reasonable notice for the 10 years of employment preceding its introduction.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's objective assessment of repudiation and found no palpable and overriding error in the findings of fact regarding mitigation.

The respondent commenced a wrongful dismissal action after being terminated.

The appellant employer brought a motion to dismiss the action, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the respondent was covered by a collective agreement.

The motions judge dismissed the motion, finding the respondent exercised managerial functions and was not an employee under the Labour Relations Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motions judge lacked jurisdiction to determine the respondent's status.

Under the exclusive jurisdiction model, the question of whether a dispute is arbitrable must be determined by an arbitrator.

The action was stayed pending arbitration.

The respondent was hired as a bingo hall manager and later signed an employment contract stating she could not be dismissed.

After being fired, she sued for wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge found the contract was for life and awarded $712,000 in damages, including lost wages until age 65 and lost profits from lottery ticket sales.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the contract lacked the explicit language required for a lifetime guarantee and interpreted it as an indefinite term contract.

The court reduced the damages to $30,800, representing a 12-month reasonable notice period, and excluded damages for lottery ticket sales as too remote.

The respondent, a middle manager for the former City of North York, was terminated following municipal amalgamation and unsuccessful job competitions.

The trial judge awarded 116 weeks' pay in lieu of notice, including an extension for bad faith conduct under Wallace, finding the employer's competition process was 'sloppy'.

The Court of Appeal allowed the employer's appeal, holding that the employer's conduct did not amount to bad faith or unfair dealing justifying a Wallace extension.

The court reduced the notice period to the 80 weeks originally offered by the employer.

The respondent's cross-appeal seeking reinstatement on the basis that he was an office holder was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her contract and defamation claims against the University of Waterloo and Gillham.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the employment contract was for a fixed term with no promise of renewal, and that there was no misrepresentation.

The Court also upheld the dismissal of the defamation claim, finding no error in the trial judge's refusal to find malice.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of $10,000 awarded to the respondents.