Mackenzie Irwin

The court found that King Ursa Inc. constructively dismissed Joanna S. McFarlane by demoting her and reducing her salary after her return from maternity leave.

The employer failed to prove that McFarlane did not mitigate her damages.

The court awarded her twelve months’ notice, calculated damages, and moral damages for the insensitive handling of her employment, but declined to find discrimination or award punitive damages.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a successful motion brought by the defendant, Bombardier Transportation Canada Inc., against the plaintiff, Nicole Barrette.

Bombardier sought approximately $16,780.50 in partial and substantial indemnity costs under Rule 49.10, having been entirely successful in the underlying motion.

Barrette argued the claim was excessive and disproportionate, suggesting $1,500, citing the simplified procedure limits under Rule 76 and the limited impact of some motion issues on the overall litigation.

The court, exercising its discretion under Rule 57.01(1), considered the offer to settle, proportionality, and local counsel rates, ultimately awarding Bombardier $5,000 in costs, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The defendant, Bombardier Transportation Canada Inc., brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, Nicole Barrette, to answer certain discovery questions and undergo an independent medical examination (IME) by a psychiatrist.

The plaintiff was terminated from her employment and is seeking damages for wrongful dismissal, alleged refusal to accommodate disability, and discriminatory conduct under the Human Rights Code.

The court granted the motion in part, compelling answers to most outstanding discovery questions and ordering the plaintiff to attend the IME, finding her mental condition was in question.

The court also addressed the scope of expert opinion and rescheduled the trial.

The defendant employer brought a motion to transfer the plaintiff employee's wrongful dismissal action to Small Claims Court.

The plaintiff's statement of claim sought $173,000 in damages arising from an alleged constructive dismissal related to the employer's COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff had mitigated his damages and that the remaining claims lacked an 'air of reality', bringing the true value within the Small Claims Court limit of $35,000.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that it could not conduct a preliminary merits test to reduce the claim's value and deprive the plaintiff of his chosen forum.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action regarding entitlement to termination benefits following an alleged change in control.

The plaintiff's action involved the same factual matrix and similar contractual terms as two other actions proceeding to trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that granting summary judgment would risk duplicative proceedings and inconsistent findings of fact, contrary to the principles in Hryniak.

The defendants brought a motion to strike several causes of action from the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal and workplace harassment claim.

The court struck the claims against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, failure to provide a safe work environment, harassment, and discrimination under the Human Rights Code, finding they were not properly pleaded as independent torts or lacked material facts.

The claim against the employer for failure to provide a safe work environment was also struck.

The court allowed the claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering against one individual defendant to proceed.

The plaintiff was granted leave to amend the struck claims.