Kristopher Stone

The appellants appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice regarding a contract dispute with the respondent.

The appellants raised two main issues: first, whether the "common employer" issue constituted a different cause of action triggering a Limitations Act defence; and second, whether the trial judge erred in finding that Mr. Nourse had authority to bind the appellants to the contract with the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found that while the common employer issue raised pleading concerns, the trial judge's finding that the appellant had notice of the claim at least six weeks before trial meant any pleading deficiencies caused no prejudice.

The Court also deferred to the trial judge's factual finding regarding Mr. Nourse's authority to bind the appellants, which was supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant received notice of fundamental changes to his employment contract in July 2007, with working notice until September 1, 2009.

In October 2008, the respondents sought to impose immediate changes requiring the appellant to close his neighbourhood office and relocate to an Allstate-operated office.

The appellant refused and was terminated for cause on November 6, 2008.

The trial judge found the termination was proper.

On appeal, the court found that the Neighbourhood Office Agent Amendment (NOA) precluded the respondents from unilaterally imposing the relocation during the notice period, as it constituted a fundamental change to the agreed business model.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the appellant entitled to compensation for the balance of the notice period.

The defendants appealed a Master's order compelling them to produce audited financial statements and income tax documentation during discovery.

The underlying action involved claims for wrongful dismissal, unpaid wages, and oppression, including claims against the directors under the Employment Standards Act and the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The defendants argued that discovery regarding director liability was premature until corporate liability was established and execution returned unsatisfied.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory preconditions for director liability do not restrict an employee's right to prosecute the litigation and obtain discovery.