Kyle M. Lambert

The plaintiff, a Vice President of Acquisitions and Asset Management and Chief Compliance Officer, was terminated by the defendant after three months less one day of employment.

The plaintiff claimed wrongful dismissal, arguing that the termination clause in the employment agreement was void and unenforceable as it violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The court found that the termination clause, including the probationary employment provision, was void and unenforceable because it purported to give the employer more expansive termination rights than those established in the ESA.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to reasonable notice upon termination and awarded three months' notice, resulting in damages of $44,644.46 for base salary, benefits, and reimbursement of professional examination fees.

The court rejected claims for bonus compensation, aggravated damages, and punitive damages.

This was a summary judgment motion brought by Andrew Cole and Andrew Cole Corporation, defendants to a counterclaim, seeking to dismiss the counterclaim advanced by Demilec Inc. Demilec alleged that Mr. Cole, as Executive Director of the Canadian Urethane Foam Contractors Association Inc. (CUFCA), acted out of self-interest by developing a competitive product, improperly certifying a competitor's product, and sending misleading emails.

The court found that Demilec failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The allegations against Mr. Cole involved conduct undertaken in his capacity as a CUFCA employee, and no personal liability was established.

The motion was granted, and the counterclaim against Andrew Cole and Andrew Cole Corporation was dismissed.

The appellant, Gladys Segura, appealed the dismissal of her application to transfer her Small Claims Court action to the Superior Court of Justice and to add the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and Commission for Complaints for Telecom-Television Services (CCTTS) as defendants.

The original Small Claims action involved claims against Rogers Communications Inc. for alleged overcharges, improper service termination, and a phone exchange.

The application judge found that the appellant had not demonstrated that her claim could not be justly and fairly resolved in Small Claims Court, nor had she provided sufficient material facts to support higher damages, equitable relief, or claims against the proposed new defendants.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's decision, affirming the dismissal of the transfer application and the refusal to add new parties.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiff, Gladys Segura Mosquera, successfully brought a motion to set aside a prior order dismissing her motion to transfer a Small Claims Court proceeding and add new defendants.

She then sought costs for this successful motion, claiming over $100,000 as a self-represented litigant.

The court denied the plaintiff's claim for costs, finding that her submissions did not comply with the court's order for detailing time and work performed, and she failed to establish any lost opportunity costs, which are a prerequisite for self-represented litigants to recover costs.

The court rejected arguments that denying costs in such circumstances was discriminatory or contravened Charter s. 15 or the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

Following a motion and cross-motion concerning amendments to a statement of claim, the court determined costs.

The moving party sought substantial indemnity costs relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle and alleging improper litigation conduct by opposing counsel.

The court found the motion unnecessary and concluded that counsel for the responding party engaged in improper conduct, including impugning opposing counsel’s integrity and taking procedural steps that lengthened the proceedings.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules 57.01, 57.03, and 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs after the offer date.

Costs of $7,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST were ordered payable within 30 days.

The moving party sought leave to amend a statement of claim in a defamation action after documentary discovery revealed additional allegedly defamatory emails authored by the responding party.

The responding party opposed the amendment on the basis that the communications were unrelated, privileged, and statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and the Libel and Slander Act.

The court applied Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the presumption in favour of permitting amendments absent non-compensable prejudice.

It found the amendments merely provided further particulars of an existing defamation claim rather than advancing a new cause of action, and that any prejudice could be addressed through procedural steps.

The motion to amend was granted and the responding party’s cross‑motion to compel answers to undertakings was dismissed.