Muneeza Sheikh

Following a trial decision in a wrongful dismissal action, a dispute arose regarding the calculation of the plaintiff's Long-Term Incentive Plan (LTIP) damages.

The plaintiff included a dividend payment of $1,736.10 related to a Restricted Share Unit in his calculations, which the defendant opposed on the basis that dividends were not specifically addressed in the trial reasons.

The court held that the dividend flowed naturally from the decision to award the plaintiff value for his LTIP and permitted its inclusion in the final order.

Wrongful dismissal action by a senior executive seeking common law notice damages, bonus compensation, long-term incentive compensation, tax gross-up, benefits, and bad faith-related damages.

The court rejected inducement, fixed reasonable notice at eight months, and applied the common law framework governing incentive compensation during the notice period.

It held that the employee was entitled to a 40% STIP for 2019 and a prorated STIP through the end of notice, and to the value of LTIP units vesting within notice plus prorated value of unvested LTIP, because the forfeiture language in the grant documents was not sufficiently enforceable to remove common law entitlements.

Claims for tax gross-up and bad faith, punitive, and moral damages were dismissed, and limited benefits damages were awarded.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, the successful plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court declined to award elevated costs, noting the plaintiff's conduct contributed to the motion's circumstances, including an unsuccessful adjournment request.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable within 30 days.

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal, human rights damages, and intentional infliction of mental suffering against his employer and its principal, as well as against a related corporation, claiming they were common employers.

The related corporation brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the action against it.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that this was not one of the rare cases where partial summary judgment is appropriate, as the claims against the moving party were factually intertwined with the claims against the other defendants, creating a material risk of inconsistent findings.

The plaintiff, a 54-year-old employee with 21 years of service, brought an action for wrongful dismissal.

Following a summary judgment motion, a mini-trial was held to determine the plaintiff's character of employment, reasonable notice, and mitigation efforts.

The court found that despite his title, the plaintiff did not hold a management position.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court set the reasonable notice period at 18 months.

However, the court reduced the notice period by two months because the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by using an inaccurate resume to apply for incomparable senior management positions.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that reinstated an employee terminated shortly after participating in a union organizing drive.

The Board found the employer failed to prove the termination was free of anti-union animus.

On judicial review, the employer argued the Board breached procedural fairness by refusing to admit new evidence of poor job performance at the hearing, and that its credibility findings were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's refusal to admit late evidence accorded with its rules and procedural fairness, and that its findings of fact and credibility were reasonable and well-supported by the evidence.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding they discriminated against three Muslim employees by requiring them to taste pork, failing to accommodate religious holidays, and engaging in reprisals.

The applicants argued the Tribunal made unreasonable findings of fact, erred in its treatment of s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, and improperly ignored unsworn willsay statements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's fact-finding was reasonable, the s. 45.1 argument was not raised before the Tribunal, and willsay statements of uncalled witnesses are not evidence.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination by her employer regarding her alcohol addiction.

The respondent employer requested that the applicant's union, the Durham Regional Police Association, be added as a respondent.

The applicant and the union opposed this request.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the union as a respondent, finding no allegations of Code violations against the union and noting the applicant's opposition.

However, the Tribunal granted the union's request for intervenor status, recognizing its interest in the accommodation issues raised.

The applicant, a teacher, went on medical leave due to vision problems and migraines.

While on leave, he requested to attend a year-end class trip to Ottawa and a graduation ceremony.

The respondent school board denied his request to attend the trip in a teaching capacity due to liability and safety concerns, and because medical clarification was provided too late to make arrangements.

For the graduation ceremony, the respondent arranged for the applicant to greet students from the floor rather than the stage, which the applicant initially accepted before requesting to be on stage at the last minute.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the application, finding no discrimination.

The respondent had legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for its decisions and did not fail in its duty to accommodate.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, including a poisoned work environment and failure to accommodate.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of a concurrent union grievance based on the same facts.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that the issues were identical and that the respondent should not be forced to defend itself in parallel proceedings, particularly given an ongoing professional standards investigation.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application, originally concerning events in 2010, to include numerous allegations from 2012 and 2013.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it would significantly alter the nature of the application and be unfair to the respondent given the proximity to the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal also deferred a request by the respondent to order the destruction of protected student records, directing that the documents be sealed.

Finally, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request to adjourn the hearing, noting that retaining counsel shortly before a hearing does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance.

The applicant, who alleged her employment was terminated because of her pregnancy, brought a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking the production of medical documents relating to a witness's doctor visits and more detailed witness statements from the respondent.

The Tribunal found the medical documents were arguably relevant to the respondent's claim that the applicant was terminated for performance reasons, ordering their production with unrelated medical information redacted.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to provide revised witness statements particularizing the alleged performance issues.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike portions of an amended statement of claim against a corporate officer personally.

The plaintiff sought damages related to her termination of employment and pleaded tort claims for intentional or negligent infliction of nervous shock and punitive damages against the officer.

The court held it was plain and obvious that the tort claims had no reasonable prospect of success because allowing them would circumvent contractual exclusion and entire agreement clauses contained in the employment agreement.

Applying principles from Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence concerning limitation of liability clauses and privity, the court found the exclusion clause extended to the officer acting within the scope of employment.

The claims against the officer were struck in their entirety without leave to amend.