Nicole Simes

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal, alleging she was terminated in part due to her romantic relationship with the defendant's CEO and issues relating to her children's cell phones.

She pleaded discrimination based on marital and family status under the Human Rights Code.

The defendant moved to strike these pleadings for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court declined to strike the marital status claim, finding that a serious romantic relationship might fall within the evolving definition of marital status.

However, the court struck the family status claim because the plaintiff did not plead discrimination based on a parent-child relationship.

The plaintiff, a 62-year-old senior family law clerk with 27 years of service, brought a motion for summary judgment claiming wrongful dismissal.

The defendant law firm argued that the plaintiff had voluntarily resigned after a meeting regarding workplace restructuring, during which she became upset, handed in her security pass, and left the office.

The court found that the plaintiff's actions did not constitute a clear and unequivocal resignation when viewed contextually, noting her long tenure, emotional state, and the employer's failure to make further inquiries.

The court granted summary judgment on liability, finding the plaintiff did not resign, and ordered a trial of an issue for the quantum of damages.

The defendant employer moved to strike or permanently stay a wrongful dismissal action on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff was a unionized employee subject to a collective agreement.

The plaintiff argued he was not part of the bargaining unit and therefore not bound by the collective agreement’s grievance and arbitration procedures.

The court held that the dispute concerned the applicability and interpretation of the collective agreement and the termination of employment, matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitration under the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

The court found that determining whether the plaintiff was covered by the collective agreement was itself a matter for an arbitrator.

The action was therefore stayed and costs awarded to the defendant.