Robert L. Colson

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against her former employer, claiming wrongful dismissal and breach of her employment contract.

The core issue was whether her contract automatically renewed for an additional year because the employer failed to provide a 30-day notice of non-renewal prior to the end of the initial three-year term.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, interpreting the contract to mean it had automatically renewed.

The court awarded the plaintiff her base salary and performance bonus for the remainder of the initial term plus the one-year renewal period, but denied her claims for health insurance stipends and office expenses.

Following a motion to strike evidence where the determination was reserved to the application judge, the parties made submissions on costs.

The responding party sought an immediate award of costs, while the moving party submitted costs should be reserved.

The court applied previous jurisprudence holding that where the merits of a motion to strike are not decided, costs should be reserved.

Costs of the motion were reserved to the judge hearing the application on its merits.

The respondent club brought a motion to strike out portions of an affidavit filed by the applicant in support of an application, arguing the impugned paragraphs contained argument, contentious facts based on information and belief without a specified source, and privileged information.

The court considered whether it should rule on the admissibility of the evidence prior to the hearing of the application on its merits.

Applying the principle that evidence should generally not be struck on an interlocutory motion absent special reasons, the court declined to decide the admissibility issues.

The motion was dismissed, leaving the evidentiary rulings to the judge hearing the application.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's refusal ruling made during examinations for discovery in a wrongful dismissal action involving a senior trading employee.

The appeal challenged the Master's refusal to compel answers to certain discovery questions and requests for document production, including historical trading records, settlement negotiation materials, metadata, bonus pool information, and board approval materials for a deferred payment plan.

Applying the proportionality principles under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that the requested production would be disproportionate or irrelevant and that the Master made no palpable or overriding error.

The court emphasized deference to Masters on discovery matters and reaffirmed that proportionality governs the scope of discovery.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a former executive who resigned and claimed constructive dismissal, brought a motion for summary judgment for his unpaid 2011 bonus.

The parties agreed on the bonus amount, and the bank paid two-thirds in cash prior to the motion.

The issue was whether the bank could pay the remaining one-third in restricted share units (RSUs) as per its past practice and the governing plan, or if the plaintiff was entitled to cash.

The court held that the plan did not prohibit the bank from granting RSUs to a former employee, and the plaintiff was not entitled to demand the remaining balance in cash.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her motion for security for costs, authorizing the respondent to control the conduct of the intended action, and awarding costs to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motions judge's refusal to order security for costs, noting the action was neither vexatious nor frivolous.

The court also upheld the costs award and found the order for directions was a sensible interlocutory order authorized by the Canadian Business Corporations Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant insured was sued for defamation after posting messages on an internet message board.

He sought a declaration that his homeowner's liability insurer had a duty to defend him in the action.

The insurer denied coverage based on an exclusion for bodily injury or property damage caused by an intentional act.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding the exclusion applied.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the pleadings in the defamation action, which alleged intentional and malicious conduct, fell squarely within the intentional act exclusion, as the insured's intent to publish the statements necessarily involved an intent to injure the plaintiffs' reputation.

The parties, two dentists, practised together under a Cost Sharing Agreement containing an arbitration clause.

After their relationship broke down, the respondent sued for breach of contract, conversion, and malicious prosecution.

The appellant moved for a stay of proceedings under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, which the motions judge dismissed on the basis that the malicious prosecution claim fell outside the arbitration agreement and the matters could not easily be separated.

The Court of Appeal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal because a finding that a dispute falls outside an arbitration agreement is not barred by s. 7(6).

The Court upheld the motions judge's decision, finding no error in the refusal to grant a partial stay.