Lluc Cerdà

The appellant, an unsalaried truck driver, appealed the dismissal of his constructive dismissal claim.

He alleged a new compensation plan introduced by the respondent substantially and detrimentally changed his terms of employment.

The trial judge found insufficient evidence of detriment.

On appeal, the appellant raised three grounds: improper admission of hearsay evidence, striking of an affidavit without applying *Farber v. Royal Trust Co.*, and refusal to allow impeachment of a witness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the hearsay objection was untimely, the trial judge's assessment of the affidavit's probative value was reasonable, and the impeachment attempt did not comply with the *Evidence Act* and was on a peripheral point.

A motion to adduce fresh evidence was also dismissed as unnecessary.

This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario following a successful appeal by the appellant, Candace Taylor, in a constructive dismissal action.

The Court had previously set aside the motion judge's dismissal of the action and the original costs order.

This endorsement addresses the costs of the underlying motion.

The appellant sought $15,000 or, alternatively, partial indemnity costs of $10,533.07.

The respondent argued for no costs.

The Court awarded the appellant partial indemnity costs of $8,500, finding this amount to be fair, reasonable, and proportionate, while accounting for some duplication in counsel's efforts.

A long-service truck driver alleged constructive dismissal following an asset purchase and transition to a new compensation structure, asserting reduced compensation, fewer hours, pressure to accept long-haul work, unsafe equipment, delayed paperwork, and workplace conduct causing medical leave.

Applying the constructive dismissal framework, the court held the employee failed to prove any unilateral, substantial, and detrimental change to an essential term of employment or a course of conduct showing the employer no longer intended to be bound by the contract.

The court found the evidentiary record on compensation comparisons was inadequate, rejected the health and safety allegations, and found no causal evidentiary basis linking the medical leave to the employer’s conduct.

The employer’s alternative frustration defence also failed because the evidence did not establish no reasonable likelihood of return to work within a reasonable time.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a receptionist at an oral surgery clinic for 30 years, brought a wrongful dismissal action after her employment was terminated due to the defendants' retirement.

The court found that the conflict of interest and confidential information clauses in her employment contract violated the Employment Standards Act, rendering the termination provisions unenforceable.

The court awarded a 15-month notice period, reducing the agreed 18-month period by 3 months for a slight failure to mitigate.

The court also ruled that the plaintiff's CERB payments should not be deducted from her damages award.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her constructive dismissal action, which was decided on a Rule 21 motion.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by taking judicial notice of disputed facts and by misapplying pleading rules, effectively treating the Rule 21 motion as a summary judgment motion.

The Court held that material factual issues were in dispute, making a Rule 21 determination inappropriate without evidence.

The Court declined to interpret the Employment Standards Act provisions and associated regulations regarding infectious disease emergency leave (IDEL) in the absence of a proper factual record, remitting the action to the Superior Court for determination.

The plaintiff employee and defendant employer both brought motions for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff was temporarily laid off in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the layoff was extended several times.

The plaintiff waited nine months before alleging constructive dismissal.

The court found that the plaintiff had acquiesced to the layoff by failing to object within a reasonable period of time.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the action was granted.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff, a tow truck operator, sued for wrongful dismissal after being summarily terminated without notice following five and a half years of service.

The defendant employer alleged just cause, claiming the plaintiff stole gas and engaged in other misconduct.

The court found the employer failed to prove the allegations on a balance of probabilities and failed to provide the plaintiff an opportunity to respond before termination.

The court also determined the plaintiff was an employee, not an independent contractor, and awarded six months' pay in lieu of notice plus unpaid vacation pay, totaling $19,860.75.

The defendant employer brought a Rule 21 motion to dismiss the plaintiff's constructive dismissal action.

The plaintiff had been temporarily laid off due to the COVID-19 pandemic and government-mandated closures.

The court held that under the Employment Standards Act and O. Reg. 228/20, the temporary layoff was deemed an Infectious Disease Emergency Leave (IDEL).

The court explicitly declined to follow a recent decision (Coutinho) and concluded that the IDEL regulation displaced the common law doctrine of constructive dismissal for COVID-19 related layoffs.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Ursula Sams, brought a motion for default judgment against her former employer, BCG Logistics (2000) Inc., for wrongful dismissal after 12 years of employment.

The defendant was noted in default.

The court initially declined to grant the full relief sought due to insufficient evidence regarding the value of benefits, the plaintiff's mitigation efforts, and the basis for aggravated damages.

The plaintiff was required to provide further evidence, including her current employment status and proof of income.

Despite initially attempting to avoid disclosing re-employment, the plaintiff later confirmed she had found comparable employment within four months.

The court emphasized the plaintiff's obligation to mitigate damages, even in a default judgment scenario.

The court ultimately awarded the plaintiff statutory termination pay and damages for the period until she secured new employment, dismissing claims for aggravated damages and the argument that mitigation credit was not required due to default.