Christopher M. Andree

A long‑term employee brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action after nearly 39 years of service.

The court determined the employee’s position at termination remained a middle‑management role despite internal restructuring.

Applying the Bardal factors, including the employee’s age, lengthy service, and managerial character of employment, the court fixed the reasonable notice period at 24 months.

The employer failed to establish that the employee had not made reasonable mitigation efforts.

However, the court held the employee was not entitled to further incentive payments under the employer’s short‑term incentive plan because the plan required active employment at the payout date.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, arguing they offended s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act by referring to the contents and outcomes of a College of Nurses discipline proceeding.

The plaintiff argued the Court of Appeal had previously granted leave to include these facts.

The court held that s. 36(3) provides an absolute prohibition against admitting records or decisions of College proceedings in civil actions.

The motion was granted, and the impugned portions of the pleadings were struck.

Following the release of the main appeal decision, counsel for the parties requested that the Court of Appeal address the costs of the original motion.

The Court ordered that the costs of the original motion be referred to the motion judge.

The appellant nurse was terminated and her employer reported the termination to the College of Nurses.

After the College dismissed the charges, the appellant sued her employer and manager for wrongful dismissal and bad faith.

The motion judge struck the bad faith claims, ruling that s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 rendered all related documents inadmissible.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that documents created in the normal course of business prior to the report to the College are not protected by s. 36(3) and can be used to prove bad faith.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision declaring the applicant and Metro Waste Paper Recovery Inc. to be related employers under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant argued the Board erred by applying s. 1(4) without first determining the 'true' employer and by exercising its discretion without identifying labour relations mischief.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, fact-driven, and within its specialized expertise.

The Board properly identified that a single employer declaration would undermine collective bargaining rights and create an unviable bargaining structure.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee $28,000 for wrongful dismissal, representing seven months' notice including Wallace damages.

The employer argued it had just cause to terminate the employee for dishonesty and breach of policy, and challenged the Wallace damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's conclusion that the employer failed to prove dishonesty.

The Court also upheld the Wallace damages, noting the employer's blatant disregard for the employee by terminating her two weeks before she was to give birth.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a claim for damages for alleged wrongful dismissal.

The Court of Appeal held the matter was fact driven and found no significant error in the trial judge's factual findings or application of law.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant employee sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order for termination pay, alleging she was constructively dismissed after being intentionally pushed by the employer's owner, who was also her father.

The Board found that while the physical contact was not inadvertent, there was no intention to push or harm the applicant.

The owner had reached out to cause the applicant to look up during a heated dispute, causing her to fall backwards without injury.

The Board concluded this contact did not amount to a constructive dismissal and dismissed the application.