Maureen M. Quinlan

The appellant, Mounir Nader, appealed the dismissal of his claim for damages related to the early termination of his secondment agreement with Ontario Health and University Health Network (UHN).

He sought payment for the remaining term of the secondment, 12 months' severance, and a discretionary annual performance-based bonus.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the secondment agreement was not an employment agreement and that the appellant was only entitled to 12 months' severance under his employment agreement, not additional payment for the secondment term.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred in denying the performance-based bonus, concluding it was an integral part of compensation and should be awarded for the severance period.

The defendant moved to dismiss a proposed class action for employee misclassification due to delay.

The action was subject to the one-year mandatory dismissal deadline under section 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, which expired on October 1, 2021.

The self-represented plaintiff advised the court that he had settled his personal claims, was unaware his former counsel had commenced a class action, and did not wish to proceed as a representative plaintiff.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action with no costs.

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant hospital network and subsequently seconded to a provincial health agency.

The secondment was terminated early, and the plaintiff's employment was terminated without cause.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the secondment agreement was a fixed-term employment contract entitling him to compensation for the balance of the term, plus 12 months' severance under his original employment agreement.

The court dismissed this claim, finding the secondment agreement was not an employment contract and the plaintiff remained an employee of the hospital network subject to the 12-month termination provision.

The court awarded the plaintiff a $5,000 health care spending account but dismissed his claim for a performance bonus.

The plaintiffs, a group of unionized and non-unionized hospital employees, sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant employer from enforcing a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy that threatened termination of employment.

The court dissolved a previously granted interim injunction.

For the unionized employees, the court held that the essential character of the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labour arbitration process under the collective agreements, and declined to exercise its residual jurisdiction to grant interim relief where the unions had carriage of the grievances and had not sought such relief.

For the non-unionized employees, the court found no irreparable harm, as monetary damages would be an adequate remedy if their employment was wrongfully terminated.

The plaintiffs, employees of the University Health Network, brought an urgent motion for an interim injunction to prevent their termination for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine.

The defendants raised significant jurisdictional issues, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction over unionized employees.

The court granted a short-term interim order preserving the status quo for the named plaintiffs and specific individuals until a proper hearing on the jurisdictional issues could take place, noting the potential for irreparable harm if the employees were compelled to take the vaccine against their will.

The applicant municipality brought a motion for civil contempt against the respondent, a former mayor, for breaching a prior court order by disclosing confidential information during public town hall meetings.

The court found that the respondent had indeed breached the order by revealing personal information of employees from a confidential binder, and that the breach was intentional as per the legal test for civil contempt.

However, the court exercised its discretion to decline a formal finding of contempt, considering factors such as the respondent's honest belief (a mistake of law without contumacious intent), reliance on legal advice, the context of political discourse during an election campaign, the cessation of the conduct post-election, and the fundamental importance of freedom of expression.

The motion for contempt was dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.

The plaintiff vendor sued its real estate broker and agent for overpaid commissions on the sale of a commercial property.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing they were entitled to the full commission under the listing agreement.

The court found that the agent had orally agreed to reduce the commission for a second, higher-priced offer, but later reneged.

The court also noted the agent breached his fiduciary duty by advising the plaintiff to accept an offer that yielded a higher commission for the agent but a lower net return for the plaintiff.

The defendants' motion was dismissed, and summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the overpaid commission of $77,970.