3 total
The court held that Ontario Regulation 228/20 does not displace an employee's common law right to sue for constructive dismissal.
The plaintiff, Michael Chalmers, brought a motion for summary judgment against his former employer, Airways Transit Service Limited, and its owner, Badder Capital Group Limited, for constructive dismissal.
Chalmers was laid off in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and was never recalled, despite other management staff returning to work.
Airways Transit argued that Ontario Regulation 228/20 (Infectious Diseases Emergency Leave) precluded a common law constructive dismissal claim.
The court rejected this argument, affirming that the ESA does not displace common law remedies.
The court found that Chalmers was constructively dismissed as of June 4, 2020, when Airways Transit effectively phased him out due to his high salary.
The court awarded Chalmers 25 months' reasonable notice, including a "COVID bump" and $30,000 in punitive damages for the employer's high-handed and misleading conduct, while declining aggravated/moral damages.
Unopposed motions to consolidate two slip and fall actions and amend pleadings granted.
The plaintiff brought three unopposed motions in writing regarding two proceedings arising from the same alleged slip and fall accident.
The first two motions sought to consolidate the two actions, as the plaintiff had initially sued an unknown property management company and later commenced a second action upon learning its identity.
The third motion sought leave to amend the statement of claim in the consolidated proceeding to reflect the correct parties.
The court granted the consolidation, finding the proceedings had common questions of fact and law, and granted leave to amend the pleadings to correct the misnomer and remove discontinued parties.
Employer did not discriminate based on addiction, but owes $5,808 for without-cause wrongful dismissal.
The plaintiff, a tire technician, sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal and discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code, alleging he was terminated because of his drug addiction.
The court found that the employer had accommodated the plaintiff's addiction and that the termination was instead the result of cumulative insubordination, workplace harassment, and a refusal to cooperate in a workplace violence investigation.
The human rights claim was dismissed.
However, because the employer chose to terminate without cause rather than for cause, the court awarded the plaintiff 2.5 months of reasonable notice, less the two weeks already paid under the Employment Standards Act, totaling $5,808.00.
