Matthew Dewar

The plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal claim after his employment as a commission sales agent was terminated.

Following the striking of the defendant's statement of defence, the matter proceeded to an uncontested trial.

The court found the plaintiff was an employee or dependent contractor, and that his prior service with a predecessor company should be recognized due to an implied novation.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded an 18-month notice period, resulting in damages of $81,447.15 for lost commissions during the notice period, plus costs.

The plaintiff, a warehouse employee of 13.5 years, sued for wrongful dismissal after the defendant outsourced its warehouse operations.

The plaintiff declined an offer of employment from the outsourcing company before his termination took effect.

The court held that the plaintiff did not fail to mitigate his damages because the alternative job offer was made and withdrawn prior to his actual termination.

The court awarded the plaintiff 12 months of reasonable notice and dismissed the claim for punitive damages.

The plaintiff, a 22-year employee, claimed he was constructively dismissed when his employer allegedly demoted him from Regional Sales Manager to Project Manager.

The employer maintained that the plaintiff had always functioned as a Project Manager and that no demotion occurred.

Following a trial, the court found that the employer did not breach an essential term of the employment contract and did not evince an intention to no longer be bound by it.

The court concluded that the plaintiff voluntarily resigned, and the action for wrongful dismissal was dismissed.

The respondent requested an order for the production of documents and an adjournment of the hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the self-represented applicant to produce documents regarding her civil action for long-term disability benefits, her medical condition, and any income earned since commencing her medical leave, finding them arguably relevant to the issues of compensation and credibility.

The request for an adjournment was denied, as any issues regarding the sufficiency of disclosure could be addressed at the hearing.

The respondent employer requested to defer the human rights application because the applicant had commenced a civil action against her long-term disability insurer regarding the denial of benefits.

The Tribunal denied the request for deferral, finding insufficient overlap between the proceedings.

The civil action involved different parties and distinct legal issues regarding disability eligibility, whereas the human rights application focused on allegations of discrimination by the employer.

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to add allegations of discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, sexual harassment, and reprisal.

The respondents consented to adding sex and reprisal but objected to sexual orientation and sexual harassment.

The Tribunal granted the request to add sex and reprisal because the supporting facts were in the original application and there was no prejudice.

The Tribunal denied the request to add sexual orientation and sexual harassment because the facts were unrelated to the original application, the request was made approximately two years after the alleged incidents, and allowing the amendment would prejudice the respondents.