Landon Young

The plaintiff employee sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without cause.

He argued that an illegal 'Termination for Cause' clause in his employment agreement rendered the entire termination provision, including the 'Termination of Employment with Notice' clause, void and unenforceable.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the 'Termination of Employment with Notice' clause was a stand-alone provision that complied with the Employment Standards Act and was enforceable on its own terms.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, the defendant's cross-motion was granted, and the action was dismissed.

A long‑term employee brought a motion for summary judgment following termination for alleged insubordination related to sales to a delinquent customer.

The employer asserted just cause and argued that the written employment agreement providing twelve months’ notice was unenforceable.

The court found that the employment agreement was valid and enforceable, noting that the employer prepared the agreement, signed it, and implemented its terms, including a salary increase tied to the contract.

Applying the contextual approach to just cause for dismissal, the court held the alleged conduct did not amount to wilful disobedience or insubordination justifying summary termination, particularly given the employee’s exemplary record and lack of documented warnings.

Summary judgment was granted and the employee was awarded damages equal to twelve months’ salary pursuant to the contractual notice provision.

The defendant employer brought a motion challenging the court’s jurisdiction over an employee’s claim for long‑term disability benefits.

The employee had been covered by a collective agreement incorporating a health benefits program administered by a third‑party administrator.

The court held that the essential character of the dispute concerned the interpretation and application of the collective agreement and its incorporated disability benefits plan.

Applying the exclusive arbitral jurisdiction doctrine under s. 48(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and the framework from Weber v Ontario Hydro, the court concluded that the matter must be resolved through the labour arbitration process.

The expiry of the collective agreement and the plant closure did not extinguish rights arising under the agreement.

The action against the employer was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.