Matthew A. Fisher

The plaintiff, a 47-year-old Director of Marketing and Communication, sued for wrongful dismissal after his employment was terminated without cause after nearly three years of service.

The court found the termination clause in his employment agreement void under the Employment Standards Act.

Considering the Bardal factors and the negative impact of the global pandemic on the plaintiff's ability to secure alternate employment, the court awarded 10 months' reasonable notice.

Claims for bad faith damages regarding a damaged USB stick were dismissed, and the court found no failure to mitigate.

The plaintiff, a 61-year-old professional engineer, brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action against his employer of approximately 26 years.

The court determined that despite a brief break in service where the plaintiff acted as an independent consultant, his employment should be viewed holistically.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded a 24-month notice period, subject to a two-week contingency deduction for future mitigation.

The court declined to award damages for lost bonuses, finding no evidence that bonuses would likely be paid during the notice period due to the pandemic.

Following a trial in a wrongful dismissal action where the plaintiff succeeded and was awarded damages, the court addressed the quantum of costs and interest.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing that several defences maintained by the defendants until shortly before trial were baseless and vexatious.

The defendants argued that costs should remain on a partial indemnity scale and that certain claimed legal fees should be reduced, including work related to a previously settled summary judgment motion and time spent by a lawyer who did not appear at trial.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01 and the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable to the unsuccessful party, the court fixed costs at $47,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff was also awarded pre‑judgment and post‑judgment interest.

The plaintiff alleged that the provincial government induced a breach of his employment contract and intentionally interfered with his economic relations after revoking his security clearance to access the government licensing database used at a private motor vehicle licensing office.

The revocation followed a security screening that revealed past associations with outlaw motorcycle gangs.

The court held that the government’s decision was part of a general security screening policy designed to protect sensitive government databases and was not directed at causing a breach of the plaintiff’s employment contract.

The evidence did not establish the requisite intention to induce breach of contract, nor did it show the use of unlawful means necessary to support the tort of intentional interference with economic relations.

The plaintiff’s action was dismissed.

The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without cause.

The parties had agreed to the essential terms of employment in May 2007.

After the plaintiff started working, the defendant presented a document containing a termination clause limiting notice to the minimums under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The court held that the termination clause was null and void because the defendant provided no new consideration for the amendment to the existing oral contract.

The plaintiff was awarded damages based on a reasonable notice period of 3.9 months.