Kristen Pennington

The appellant employer terminated the respondent employee for just cause following an investigation into a co-worker's complaint of sexual harassment.

The employee refused to apologize for the inappropriate comments, although he agreed to sensitivity training.

The trial judge found the termination was not justified, awarding damages in lieu of notice.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the trial judge erred in failing to properly apply the just cause test, specifically by not characterizing the employee's conduct as sexual harassment and by focusing solely on the refusal to apologize.

The Court determined that the employee's sexually harassing comments, coupled with his lack of remorse and refusal to comply with the employer's reasonable disciplinary requirement of an apology, constituted an irreparable breakdown in the employment relationship, justifying termination for cause.

The appeal was allowed, and the employee's claim was dismissed.

Following an eight-day trial where the plaintiff obtained judgment for $187,000 plus prejudgment interest, the parties submitted written arguments on costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs to the date of his Offer to Settle and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, arguing his Offer was more favourable than the judgment.

The defendant contended that substantial indemnity costs were unwarranted due to the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for aggravated, punitive, and special damages.

The court found the plaintiff's Offer to Settle complied with Rule 49 and was more favourable, entitling him to partial indemnity costs to the offer date and substantial indemnity thereafter.

Despite insufficient detail in both parties' costs submissions, the court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $145,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, plus prejudgment interest at 0.8%.

The plaintiff, a 60-year-old Senior Product Designer with 20 years of service, was summarily dismissed for cause following a co-worker's complaint of inappropriate comments.

The employer concluded the comments were harassing and required the plaintiff to undergo training and apologize.

After the plaintiff, through counsel, agreed to training but refused an apology admitting wrongdoing, the employer terminated his employment for "irreparable breakdown in the employment relationship," citing inappropriate comments, lack of remorse, and insubordination.

The court found that the plaintiff's conduct did not justify summary termination for cause, noting the employer's apparent motivation was the plaintiff consulting a lawyer rather than the alleged harassment.

The court awarded the plaintiff 20 months' notice in damages, declining to reduce for mitigation given the specialized field and lack of employer support, and denied aggravated or punitive damages.

An employee terminated without just cause as President and General Manager of a division sought damages for wrongful dismissal, including reasonable notice, bonus for the year worked, bonus during the notice period, and benefits during the notice period.

The motion judge awarded 17 months' salary in lieu of notice and the 2016 bonus but denied claims for bonus and benefits during the notice period.

The Court of Appeal allowed the employee's appeal and dismissed the employer's cross-appeal, awarding damages for loss of bonus during the notice period and loss of benefits during the notice period, while upholding the 17-month notice period and 2016 bonus award.

The plaintiff, a former President and General Manager, brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without cause.

The court granted summary judgment, awarding 17 months' reasonable notice.

The court also found the plaintiff was entitled to a pro-rated bonus for 2016 based on a historical average percentage, but dismissed claims for bonuses during the notice period, loss of benefits, and aggravated or punitive damages.

The court found the plaintiff had reasonably mitigated his damages and ordered a hybrid trust and accounting approach for the remainder of the notice period.

The plaintiff, a 59-year-old controller, was terminated after approximately 6.5 years of service.

He brought an action for wrongful dismissal, which proceeded by way of summary judgment.

The court applied the Bardal factors and awarded 10 months' reasonable notice.

The court also found the plaintiff was entitled to his 2016 discretionary bonus of $20,000, as the employer's unofficial policy of not paying bonuses to terminated employees was not applied fairly.

Claims for a 2017 bonus and loss of benefits were dismissed.

The court found the plaintiff had met his duty to mitigate.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of claims for wrongful dismissal and wrongful/arbitrary detention.

The court held that the claims were statute‑barred under s. 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002 and that the wrongful dismissal claim was additionally barred by s. 97(2) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and the doctrine of issue estoppel, as the plaintiff had previously pursued an ESA complaint regarding the same termination and was found to have resigned.

The court declined to grant summary judgment dismissing the claim for malicious prosecution because the defendants relied exclusively on hearsay affidavit evidence and failed to meet the evidentiary burden required on a summary judgment motion.

An alternative argument that the statement of claim was deficient was not adjudicated because such relief must be brought before a master.

The motion therefore succeeded only in part.