Thomas A. Stefanik

The plaintiff, Elizabeth Scull, brought an action for wrongful dismissal against Ensemble Travel Ltd., alleging termination without cause.

The defendant contended that Scull had resigned.

The summary trial focused on whether Scull was terminated or voluntarily resigned.

The court found that Scull's words and actions, including an ultimatum regarding her reporting structure or severance, clearly indicated an intention to resign.

Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages.

The appellant employer appealed the dismissal of its motion for summary judgment seeking to enforce a release signed by the respondent employee upon his dismissal.

The release purported to waive any claim for long-term disability benefits.

The motion judge found the release unconscionable and unenforceable as it related to the long-term disability claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in determining unconscionability on summary judgment.

The court held that the issue of unconscionability and enforceability of the release was a genuine issue requiring trial determination.

The plaintiff, Joe Swampillai, brought an action for long-term disability (LTD) benefits against his former employer, Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada (RSA), and Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (Sun Life).

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that a full and final release signed by Swampillai barred his claim.

Swampillai pleaded unconscionability to set aside the release as it pertained to LTD benefits.

The court found that the release was unconscionable regarding the LTD claim because the transaction was grossly unfair and improvident, Swampillai lacked independent legal advice on this specific aspect, there was an overwhelming imbalance in bargaining power, and RSA knowingly took advantage of his vulnerability.

Consequently, the release was set aside as it related to the LTD claim, and the defendants' motions for summary judgment were dismissed.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding it had constructively dismissed the respondent employee and awarding him $80,911.88 in damages.

The employee, a dock supervisor for 25 years, was reassigned to a newly created 'freight analyst' position with significantly reduced supervisory functions and prestige.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that this unilateral change constituted a substantial alteration of essential employment terms.

The Court also affirmed that the employee was not required to accept the new position to mitigate his damages, given the unfriendly work environment, acrimonious relationships with supervisors, and the loss of dignity associated with the demotion.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding that it wrongfully dismissed the respondent employee.

The employer argued the trial judge failed to address an important credibility issue regarding whether the employee performed outside consulting work after agreeing not to do so.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's finding that the employer's evidence did not substantiate its allegations effectively dealt with the issue.

Following a successful wrongful dismissal trial in which the plaintiff recovered damages exceeding a pre-trial offer to settle, the court was asked to determine costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendant conceded the entitlement but challenged the hourly rates, time spent on trial preparation, and certain disbursements including a computer research charge.

Applying the discretionary principles governing costs and the guidance in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, the court adjusted the partial indemnity hourly rate but accepted the hours claimed and the disbursements.

The court fixed total costs, including taxes and disbursements, as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without notice from a fixed-term employment contract that provided nine months’ pay if ended early.

The employer alleged cause and counterclaimed for conversion and misuse of confidential information, asserting the employee sold a company health and safety manual to another business.

The court found the manual template had been created by the employee prior to employment and remained his property, and that the employer failed to prove misuse of confidential information or breach of directives regarding outside consulting work.

The dismissal for cause was unsupported.

The employee was entitled to contractual damages equal to nine months’ salary.

The plaintiff, a 26-year employee, sued his former employer for constructive dismissal after he was removed from his long-standing position as a dock supervisor and offered a newly created, lesser role as a freight analyst.

The employer alleged performance issues, which the court found were unsubstantiated and part of a targeted effort to find fault.

The court held that the unilateral change in duties constituted a fundamental breach of the employment contract, amounting to constructive dismissal.

The court further found that the plaintiff was not required to mitigate his damages by accepting the demeaning new position in a toxic work environment.

The plaintiff was awarded 18 months' reasonable notice, but his claim for moral damages was dismissed.

The defendant employer brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a wrongful dismissal action, arguing that an employment agreement limiting termination compensation was enforceable.

The employee resisted the motion relying on the changed substratum doctrine, asserting that promotions and increased responsibilities had fundamentally altered the employment relationship and nullified the contractual notice limitation.

The court held that, although the doctrine had not been expressly pleaded, the pleadings and affidavit evidence raised the issue sufficiently for the purposes of the motion.

Applying the summary judgment framework, the court found that genuine issues requiring a trial existed regarding whether the employee’s responsibilities and status had materially changed.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed and the action was permitted to proceed to trial.

The employer sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award, arguing the arbitration board breached procedural fairness by considering post-hearing wage settlement data without allowing further submissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board used the public information in a supplementary and confirmatory manner.

The court held that this approach was consistent with the flexible duty of fairness and the legislative nature of interest arbitration.

The appellant employer was charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act after an employee was injured by a machine.

The justice of the peace dismissed the charges because the Crown failed to provide authoritative definitions or expert testimony for technical terms like 'pinch point' and 'lock-out'.

The summary conviction appeal judge allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the employer's appeal, agreeing that the justice of the peace erred in principle by requiring expert testimony when lay witnesses had provided evidence on the meaning of the terms.

The employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding an employee's refusal to follow a directive to go to a hospital emergency department.

The arbitrator found that under s. 33(1) of the Act, the employee had the right to make the initial choice of health professional, and that the 'obey now, grieve later' rule did not apply because grieving later would be meaningless.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the statute correct and the application of the 'obey now, grieve later' exception reasonable.

The employers appealed a trial judgment awarding the plaintiff damages for wrongful dismissal.

The employers argued the plaintiff was dismissed for just cause because she gave herself and another employee unauthorized salary and vacation pay increases.

The trial judge found the conduct was an indiscretion rather than dishonesty and served as a pretext for a planned dismissal.

Applying the McKinley contextual analysis, the trial judge concluded the employers failed to prove just cause.

The Court of Appeal upheld this finding.

The plaintiff's cross-appeal on damages and the employers' appeal on the dismissed counterclaim were also dismissed.