4 total
The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action due to genuine issues requiring a trial regarding just cause.
The plaintiff sought partial summary judgment for wrongful dismissal damages against her former employer.
The defendant opposed, arguing that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, particularly concerning the contextual analysis of just cause for dismissal, the plaintiff's state of mind regarding the disclosure of confidential information to her lawyer, and the risk of duplicative proceedings and inconsistent findings if partial summary judgment were granted.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the evidentiary record was insufficient for a fair and just determination on the merits and that a full trial was necessary to resolve the complex factual and legal issues, including the employer's broader grounds for termination beyond those initially stated.
Leave to appeal granted on scope of state immunity in employment disputes.
The defendants, including a foreign embassy and its cultural bureau, sought leave to appeal a motion decision that permitted an employment-related breach of contract action to proceed despite claims of state immunity.
The motion judge had found the dispute fell within the commercial activity exception under the State Immunity Act.
On the leave motion, the court considered whether conflicting authorities existed regarding the application of the commercial activity exception in employment contexts involving foreign states.
The court held that prior decisions demonstrated conflicting approaches to the issue and that the scope of state immunity in employment relationships with foreign states raised matters of significant importance to labour relations in Canada.
Leave to appeal was therefore granted, and the time for the defendants to deliver a statement of defence was extended pending the appeal.
Appeal allowed in part to remove duplicative $15,000 Wallace damages award; wrongful dismissal and malicious prosecution findings upheld.
The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for malicious prosecution and wrongful dismissal.
The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that the trial judge's reasons were inadequate, finding they clearly showed the pathway to the result.
However, the Court agreed with the appellants that the trial judge erred by duplicating the award of 'Wallace' or 'Honda' damages and aggravated damages for malicious prosecution, as the same factors were used to justify both.
The appeal was allowed in part to set aside the $15,000 'Wallace' damages award, but otherwise dismissed.
Appeal allowed and stay of proceedings restored for unreasonable delay in bringing accused to trial.
The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal that reversed a stay of proceedings entered by the trial judge due to unreasonable delay.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in a majority oral judgment, allowed the appeal and restored the stay.
The majority found that the trial judge carefully considered all relevant factors from Askov and Morin and made no error in exercising his discretion.
The dissenting justices would have dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the trial judge erred in dealing with the period of delay and prejudice.
