Daniel Chodos

The employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the employee damages for wrongful dismissal, arguing the employee was on a fixed-term contract that had expired.

The employee cross-appealed the dismissal of her claim for punitive damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the repeated renewals of the contract created an ambiguity, rendering it a contract of continuous service.

The court also upheld the motion judge's finding that the employer's advance written notice was insufficient due to its history of issuing and withdrawing such notices.

The cross-appeal for punitive damages was also dismissed, as the employer's conduct did not meet the required threshold.

The plaintiff, Aware Ads Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction against its former employee, Greg Walker, to prevent him from working for a competitor, despite his non-competition and non-solicitation clauses having expired.

The plaintiff alleged breach of confidence, breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and conspiracy.

The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case on any of its causes of action, failed to prove irreparable harm, and found the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.

The court also ruled that a transcript and audio recording of a conversation were inadmissible due to lack of proper authentication.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed.

This decision addresses the costs arising from the Defendants' successful motion to set aside a noting in default and default judgment obtained by the Plaintiffs.

The court found the Plaintiffs acted unreasonably by obtaining default judgment despite knowing the Defendants intended to defend, and by resisting reasonable offers to set it aside.

The Plaintiffs further complicated the matter with voluminous materials and a dubious cross-motion.

The Defendants were awarded partial indemnity costs of $72,022.27, fixed and payable forthwith.

The plaintiff, an internet marketing company, brought an urgent motion for an interim injunction, a Mareva injunction, and a Certificate of Pending Litigation against two former employees and a related corporation.

The plaintiff alleged the former employees breached non-competition and non-solicitation clauses by operating a competing business and misappropriating confidential information.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case or irreparable harm, as the evidence connecting the defendants to the competing business was largely circumstantial and speculative.

The requests for asset-freezing relief and a Certificate of Pending Litigation were also dismissed due to insufficient evidence of asset dissipation or illicit funding.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking to enforce a non-competition clause against a former software developer who resigned to work for a competitor.

The defendants brought cross-motions seeking a declaration that the clause was void.

The court found the matter appropriate for partial summary judgment.

The court held that the non-competition clause was overly broad in its scope of prohibited activities, geographic scope, and temporal scope, and was ambiguous.

The clause was declared unreasonable, unenforceable, and void ab initio.

The applicant, who was dismissed from his employment after advising he would be absent for medical reasons, brought a request for an order requiring the respondent to produce an internal HR email.

The respondent claimed the email was protected by litigation privilege because it was created on the day of the applicant's dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to establish the email was created for the dominant purpose of litigation and ordered its disclosure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging a security guard made discriminatory comments based on ancestry and place of origin.

The applicant also commenced a Small Claims Court action regarding the same events of April 27, 2016, but attempted to exclude the human rights allegations from the civil claim.

The Tribunal held that splitting the case into two separate proceedings arising from the same factual transaction constitutes an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision awarding the respondent damages for wrongful dismissal, specifically challenging the inclusion of commission income and a bonus during the 16-month notice period.

The Court of Appeal upheld the commission award, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the respondent should continue to receive commission on all advertising revenue.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the bonus, finding the motion judge misapprehended the evidence regarding a guaranteed bonus.

The costs award from the court below was also reduced.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of a related action in Small Claims Court.

The Tribunal found significant overlap in the factual issues between the two proceedings and noted the civil action was at a more advanced stage.

To avoid inconsistent findings of fact, the Tribunal deferred consideration of the application pending the conclusion of the civil action.

The applicants alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, sex (pregnancy), age, and association, as well as reprisal, after being accused of shoplifting and threatened with a trespass notice by the respondents' representatives.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the reprisal allegations, finding no evidence they were linked to claiming rights under the Code.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the discrimination allegations, finding that a full hearing on the merits was necessary to assess the evidence regarding the alleged racial profiling and the respective responsibilities of the store and the security company.

The plaintiff, a 42-year-old magazine publisher with 16.5 years of continuous service (including time with a predecessor employer), brought a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal damages after being terminated without cause.

The court awarded a 16-month reasonable notice period.

The court also resolved disputes over the calculation of commissions and bonuses during the notice period, projecting commissions based on the plaintiff's historical performance and the new magazine's total revenue.

A trust and accounting approach was ordered for mitigation during the remainder of the notice period.

The applicant sought an order removing the respondent's law firm as counsel, alleging a conflict of interest because he had previously contacted the firm's administrative staff to seek legal advice and provided confidential information.

The Tribunal applied the test from MacDonald Estate and considered the Law Society's Rules of Professional Conduct.

Assuming confidential information was imparted, the Tribunal found that the law firm had implemented reasonable measures, such as ethical screens, to ensure no confidential information would be accessed by its lawyers.

The motion to disqualify the law firm was dismissed.

The respondent in a human rights application requested an order compelling the Toronto Police Services Board to produce video statements of the applicant, respondent, and two witnesses.

The Tribunal found the statements arguably relevant and ordered the police to produce them to the respondent's counsel, who must then share them with the applicant's counsel.

The applicant, a 66-year-old security guard, alleged age discrimination after being temporarily replaced at his main floor security desk for six hours during a building tour by prospective buyers.

The applicant claimed he was replaced because the building management wanted someone with 'more presence' or a 'fresh face', which he interpreted as a proxy for age.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant was replaced by a younger supervisor who had more physical presence, the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the replacement was discriminatory because of his age.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a 67-year-old security guard, alleged age discrimination after being temporarily replaced at his desk by a younger supervisor during a building tour by prospective buyers.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing on its own initiative to determine if the Application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant presented evidence that a supervisor had informed him the client requested his removal because he was 'old and short'.

The Tribunal concluded there was a reasonable prospect the applicant could prove his case and directed the respondent to file a Response.

The applicant, a lube technician with kidney stones, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, failure to accommodate, and reprisal after he was terminated.

The respondent argued the termination was due to the applicant leaving work early without management approval, excessive absenteeism, and poor workmanship, culminating in insubordination.

The Tribunal found the respondent's witnesses credible and concluded the discipline and termination were not related to the applicant's disability.

The Tribunal held the respondent did not fail in its duty to accommodate, as the applicant was disciplined for failing to follow the proper departure protocol, not for his medical condition.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who has paranoid schizophrenia, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services.

He alleged that after reporting a bomb threat to university security and being issued a trespass notice, security officers laughed and told him to 'go back to CAMH'.

The Tribunal heard testimony from the applicant and the security officers involved.

The adjudicator found the security officers to be credible and concluded that, despite the applicant's sincere belief, the alleged discriminatory comments were not made.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability (PTSD) after being denied entry to events sponsored by the corporate respondent.

The respondents claimed the applicant was barred due to previous disruptive behaviour.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request for the adjudicator to recuse himself for bias.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success at the summary hearing stage, finding that oral evidence was required to resolve the competing factual accounts regarding the reasons for the applicant's exclusion.

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled Case Resolution Conference.

The applicant's representative later contacted the Tribunal, explaining her own absence due to a medical issue and stating that the applicant was out of the country and had not contacted her.

The Tribunal found this explanation inadequate for the applicant's failure to appear and provide evidence in support of his allegations.

The application was dismissed.