Morgan Bronwyn Reid Rowe

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to partially stay an action initiated by two former civilian RCMP members, Francisco Chaves and Dayna Young.

The plaintiffs alleged abuse of authority, bullying, and harassment during their employment, particularly under Cameron Ortis, and unfair treatment after his arrest.

The Crown sought a stay, arguing that Mr. Chaves might be covered by a Quebec class proceeding.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no significant judicial economy, uncertainty regarding Mr. Chaves's inclusion in the Quebec class, and no real prejudice to the Crown if the action continued.

The court also noted that some aspects of the Ontario case might not be covered by the Quebec class action.

This is an appeal of a summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The motion judge had awarded the appellant damages equivalent to six months' reasonable notice, reduced by two months for failure to mitigate.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in reducing the appellant's damages for failure to mitigate.

Specifically, the motion judge erred in principle by suggesting the appellant should have sought lesser-paying jobs and made a palpable and overriding error by concluding the appellant "aimed too high" based solely on job titles without considering comparable duties.

The Court emphasized that the employer bears a heavy burden to prove both that the employee failed to take reasonable steps and that comparable employment would have been found.

The appeal was allowed, and the damages were based on an eight-month notice period without the two-month reduction.

This endorsement addresses the costs of motions where the defendants successfully dismissed the plaintiffs' motion to amend their statement of claim and granted the defendants' motion to strike numerous paragraphs from the statement of claim and reply.

The defendants sought $16,641.06 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued the amount was unreasonable and disproportionate, proposing $5,000.00.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles from Boucher, found the defendants' claimed time excessive due to inferred overlap between counsel.

The court fixed costs at $12,000.00, inclusive of tax and disbursements, payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants.

The plaintiffs sought to amend their statement of claim following a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision that largely barred their claims against the defendants under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to strike out paragraphs of the original statement of claim and reply that were inconsistent with the WSIAT decision, as well as allegations related to surveillance and Human Rights Code breaches.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion to amend, finding the proposed amendments were statute-barred or otherwise untenable.

The court granted the defendants' motion to strike, ruling that the WSIAT decision was final and binding, that the intentional infliction of mental suffering claim related to surveillance was inadequately pleaded, and that the Human Rights Code claims were either barred by WSIAT or could not stand alone.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action for unpaid bonus installments under the respondents' Variable Incentive Plan (VIP).

The appellant resigned before the pay-out dates for the final installment of his 2009 bonus and two installments of his 2010 bonus, totaling $114,916.79.

The VIP contained an "active employment" requirement stipulating that employees must be actively employed on the payment date to receive installments.

The appellant contended that sections 11(5) and 13(1) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 required the respondents to pay the future installments upon his resignation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the active employment requirement did not contravene the ESA because the future installments did not constitute wages to which the employee was entitled at the time of resignation.