Nikolay Y. Chsherbinin

The defendant, Klick Inc. dba Klick Health, brought a motion to transfer a wrongful dismissal action from Hamilton (Central South Region) to the Toronto Region.

The plaintiff, Danielle Tasson, opposed the motion.

The court considered the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the relevant Practice Direction, emphasizing a holistic approach.

The court found that the plaintiff’s choice of venue was reasonable, particularly in light of her childcare needs and residence circumstances, and that the defendant had not established that Toronto was “significantly better.” The motion to transfer was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Helena Maximenko, a senior manager with nearly 21 years of service, was terminated without cause by the defendant, Zim Integrated Shipping Services (Canada) Co. Ltd., one month before her 59th birthday.

She sought 24 months' pay in lieu of notice, including base salary, bonuses, pension, and car allowance.

The defendant argued for a shorter notice period (18-20 months) due to alleged failure to mitigate damages and disputed compensation calculations.

The court found the plaintiff was entitled to 24 months' notice, ruling that the defendant failed to prove inadequate mitigation efforts.

The court determined the plaintiff's base salary, calculated bonuses using a discounted three-year average, awarded car allowance, and found the value of recent pension contributions to be a reasonable measure of pension damages.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff $287,969.00 in damages, plus an unpaid 2022 bonus of $13,000, and to continue health benefits until March 15, 2025.

The corporate defendant, Medical Respiratory Care Inc. (MRC), brought a Rule 21.01(1)(b) motion to strike the action against it, arguing the Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action due to "conjunctive-disjunctive" pleading regarding the contract parties (Mr. Tiltack and/or MRC).

The plaintiff argued there was a live issue as to who the contracting party was.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the pleadings were not flawed given the ambiguity of the contract parties and that the motion was tactical.

The appellant, an employee, appealed a motion judge's order striking parts of his statement of claim in a wrongful dismissal action, which included claims against corporate directors for unpaid vacation pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) and the Business Corporations Act (OBCA), and for oppression under the OBCA.

The Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the ESA claim without leave to amend, finding the statutory preconditions were not met.

It also upheld the striking of the OBCA oppression claim with leave to amend, noting insufficient pleading of reasonable expectations.

However, the Court set aside the striking of the OBCA s. 131 claim for unpaid vacation pay without leave to amend, finding material facts were pleaded, and allowed it to proceed with amendment.

It also set aside the striking of certain paragraphs (14-23) related to the reprisal claim and varied the striking of paragraph 40, only removing irrelevant allegations.

The original costs award against the appellant was reduced to reflect his partial success on appeal.

The appellants sought to appeal an order quashing their motion to set aside a Mareva injunction, certificates of pending litigation, and Norwich orders.

The Court of Appeal determined that the quashed order was interlocutory in nature, not final, as it did not finally determine the real matter in dispute—whether fraud was perpetrated—but rather addressed collateral issues pending trial.

The court held that interlocutory orders must be appealed with leave to the Divisional Court pursuant to section 19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, not directly to the Court of Appeal.

The motion to quash the appeal was granted without prejudice to the appellants' right to seek leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

Amphenol Canada Corp. obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction and other orders against the defendants.

The defendants (Sundaram, Devappa, Sundev Technologies Inc.) subsequently brought a motion to set aside these orders.

Amphenol responded with a motion to quash or stay the defendants' set aside motion, arguing issue estoppel, collateral attack, and abuse of process, and also sought leave to amend its Statement of Claim to add Radiant Tools Ltd. as a defendant.

The court granted Amphenol's motion to add Radiant Tools Ltd. as a defendant.

The court found that the conditions for issue estoppel were satisfied regarding the strong prima facie case of fraud against the Sundev Defendants, as this issue was determined in a prior continuation motion.

While the court did not find the doctrine of collateral attack engaged, it concluded that the defendants' attempt to re-litigate issues constituted an abuse of process.

Consequently, Amphenol's motions were granted, and the defendants' Set Aside Motion was quashed or stayed.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's statement of claim in a wrongful dismissal action.

The impugned paragraphs alleged director liability for unpaid wages and oppression, as well as health and safety violations by the corporate defendants.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead the necessary material facts to establish director liability under the OBCA and ESA, and that the health and safety allegations improperly pleaded evidence rather than material facts.

The motion to strike was granted, but the plaintiff was granted leave to amend the claim.

The plaintiff brought a motion to continue an ex parte Mareva injunction against the defendants, alleging a fraudulent scheme where a former employee used the plaintiff's resources to manufacture parts for third parties and kept the profits.

The court found a strong prima facie case and a serious risk of asset dissipation against the employee's spouse, continuing the injunction against her, the employee, and their company.

However, the court found insufficient evidence of knowing participation or risk of dissipation against a third-party contractor, MTech, and dismissed the motion to continue the injunction against it.