Michael D. Wright

The plaintiff, a former Ombudsman of Ontario, commenced an action against the Office of the Ombudsman and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, seeking declaratory relief and damages for wrongful dismissal and negligent misrepresentation.

The Office of the Ombudsman moved to strike the statement of claim, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action as the Office is a statutory position, not a legal entity capable of an employment contract with the Ombudsman.

The Legislative Assembly moved to dismiss or stay the action for lack of jurisdiction, asserting parliamentary privilege over the appointment and management of parliamentary officers.

The court granted both motions, finding that the Office of the Ombudsman is not a separate legal entity capable of employing the Ombudsman, and that the Assembly's decisions regarding the appointment and non-reappointment of a parliamentary officer are protected by parliamentary privilege, thus falling outside the court's jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs, having achieved partial success against individual "HOPE defendants" for breach of loyalty but failing entirely against "Carpenter defendants" for interference with economic interests, sought substantial costs.

The defendants, having largely succeeded, proposed the plaintiffs pay a portion of their costs or that each party bear their own.

The court, emphasizing proportionality and the modest damages awarded against the HOPE defendants, ordered that each party bear their own costs, finding this outcome to be fair and proportionate given the complex "turf warfare" between unions and the disparate success against different defendant groups.

The plaintiff union sued former employees and officials associated with a rival union following the creation of a new local that successfully organized workers previously represented by the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, breach of employee duties of loyalty and confidentiality, and unlawful interference with contractual relations.

The court held the principal departing employee was not a fiduciary and that most information used in the organizing campaign was either public or not proven to have been misused.

However, several former employees breached basic duties of loyalty by preparing and initiating a competing organizing campaign before resigning and by failing to give reasonable notice of departure.

The court rejected claims of tortious interference against the rival union and its representatives.

Limited damages were awarded against the former employees for breach of employee duties.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding it wrongfully dismissed the respondent employee and discriminated against her based on family status.

Upon returning from maternity leave, the respondent was demoted, had her hours reduced, and faced reprisals when she objected, culminating in her termination.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that there was no just cause for dismissal, the 12-month notice period was reasonable, and the $20,000 human rights damages award for family status discrimination was justified.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant teachers were wrongfully dismissed by the respondent private school.

The motion judge reduced their reasonable notice period from twelve months to six months due to the school's financial difficulties and a presumption about the availability of alternative teaching positions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that an employer's financial circumstances are not relevant to determining the reasonable notice period under the Bardal factors.

The twelve-month notice period was restored.

Following dismissal of a Rule 21 motion brought by one defendant seeking to bar claims relating to expulsion from union membership, the court addressed costs.

The plaintiffs had successfully resisted the motion, which sought to preclude the action for failure to exhaust internal union appeals or for lack of jurisdiction.

Applying the discretionary costs framework under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered proportionality, complexity, and the results achieved.

Relying on appellate guidance regarding fair and reasonable costs awards, the court held that the successful plaintiffs were entitled to costs.

Partial indemnity costs of $4,990 were ordered payable by the moving defendant only.

Former union members brought a civil action seeking damages for wrongful dismissal and declarations that their expulsion from union membership was invalid and contrary to the union’s constitution and principles of natural justice.

The international union moved under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to bar portions of the claim on the basis that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal union appeal mechanisms and, alternatively, that a forum selection clause required the dispute to be litigated in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia.

The court held it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiffs were precluded from pursuing the claims without first exhausting internal remedies because the evidentiary record was insufficient to determine whether those remedies were unreasonable, impracticable, or illusory.

The court also held that a forum selection clause does not deprive Ontario courts of jurisdiction simpliciter and that jurisdiction and forum non conveniens issues had not been properly argued.

The motion was dismissed.

Employees brought a motion for default judgment in wrongful dismissal actions after the defendants’ statements of defence were struck and the defendants were noted in default.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants operated as common employers and were jointly and severally liable following the discontinuation of the business and termination of employees without adequate notice or severance.

Affidavit evidence detailed employment history, mitigation efforts, and damages.

Although the court rejected the proposed formula of one month’s pay per year of service and questioned the appropriateness of a fixed 24‑month cap, it held that the damages claimed were reasonable in the circumstances.

Default judgment was granted against two corporate defendants for the amounts claimed with pre‑judgment interest and costs.