Ben Hahn

The applicant mother sought interim child and spousal support, while the respondent father sought an order for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court imputed the father's income at $300,000 and the mother's income at $100,000 for the purposes of interim support.

The father was ordered to pay the Table amount of child support for five children, continue paying educational expenses, and contribute a lump sum of $3,000 per month for other section 7 expenses.

The father's motion for the sale of the matrimonial home was adjourned sine die as the property was already the subject of parallel power of sale proceedings in civil court.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a discovery plan and directions on the scope of documentary discovery in an action regarding unpaid employment bonuses.

The plaintiff sought extensive production of documents and correspondence to support his claim that his bonus should be based on revenue generated by his entire team, rather than just his direct sales.

The court found that while the defendant's approach to relevance was too narrow, many of the plaintiff's requests were overly broad and disproportionate.

The court ordered the defendant to produce specific, targeted data regarding team-generated revenue and limited correspondence, while dismissing the broader requests.

Success was divided, and no costs were awarded.

An applicant sought a determination of rights under an employment agreement, alleging that a termination for cause provision violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA), rendering the entire early termination clause void and entitling him to common law notice for the unexpired term of a fixed-term contract.

The court found that a valid employment contract was concluded.

While the "termination for cause" provision did not comply with the ESA due to a lower "just cause" standard compared to the ESA's "wilful misconduct," the court held that this specific clause was severable from the rest of the early termination provisions.

The "termination without cause" provision, which was ESA-compliant, remained valid and governed the early termination.

As the applicant never commenced employment and did not work for more than three months, he was not entitled to any notice, pay in lieu of notice, benefits, or severance pay under the ESA.

The court also noted that the employer's actions could be understood as negligent misrepresentation, but this was coincidental to the ESA violation.

The applicant brought an application seeking damages for wrongful dismissal and unpaid RRSP contributions, arguing he was terminated without cause and entitled to three months' severance under his employment contract.

The respondent employer argued the termination was for just cause due to the applicant's abusive behaviour towards subordinates, and sought to have the application converted to an action and dismissed via summary judgment.

The court found that material facts regarding the alleged misconduct were in dispute and required credibility assessments that could not be resolved on a paper record.

Consequently, the court ordered the entire application to proceed to trial.

An employee's employment was terminated without cause pursuant to an employment contract containing a termination clause that limited severance pay to base salary only, thereby excluding commissions.

The employee argued the clause violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000 by contracting out of an employment standard.

The contract also contained a severability clause.

The application judge used the severability clause to excise only the offending sentence, leaving the remainder of the termination clause enforceable.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that where a termination clause contracts out of any employment standard, the entire termination clause is void under section 5(1) of the ESA, and the severability clause cannot be used to save it.

The employee is therefore entitled to common law reasonable notice.

Purchasers appealed a motion judge's dismissal of their action for specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The motion judge had determined that the purchasers failed to deliver the required deposit within the contractually specified 24-hour timeframe, rendering the agreement void.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in drawing an inference that a personal cheque provided by the purchasers was not negotiable based solely on a bank statement showing insufficient funds at that moment.

The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support such an inference, particularly given that the purchasers demonstrated financial capacity by providing a bank draft within two days.

The appeal was allowed, the dismissal order was set aside, and the action was restored to the trial list.

The plaintiff moved under Rule 59.06(2) to set aside or vary a prior order dismissing summary judgment, alleging fraud or newly discovered facts concerning the non-disclosure of a substantial payment from the defendant solicitor's trust account to a co-defendant paralegal, labelled "Sawah fees." The plaintiff also sought to compel the defendant solicitor's examination for discovery in Mississauga rather than Winnipeg.

The court found the non-disclosure suspicious but determined the new evidence was insufficient to overturn the summary judgment dismissal, concluding that the matter should proceed to trial for credibility assessments.

The court granted the request for discovery in Mississauga, citing efficiency and the simplified rules.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking punitive damages against his former lawyer and paralegal, alleging they fraudulently misrepresented the settlement amounts of his tort and accident benefits claims to pocket the difference.

The court found that while the evidence against the paralegal was compelling and highly suspicious, the conflicting evidence regarding the lawyer's involvement and the requirement to prove actual loss for civil fraud necessitated a full trial.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.