OCA 2006

The appellant employer appealed the trial judge's award of a nine-month notice period and costs for wrongful dismissal, arguing the trial judge erred in finding the respondent was induced to leave her previous secure employment.

The respondent cross-appealed the dismissal of her claim for lost disability benefits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the notice period or costs award.

The Court allowed the cross-appeal, holding that the respondent was entitled to the value of disability benefits she would have received during the notice period, adjusted to prevent double recovery of both full salary and disability benefits for the same period.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual offences.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's credibility findings, noting they were well-supported by the evidence, including a corroborating statement made by the complainant's sister.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding a custodial term was not unreasonable and declining to give weight to fresh evidence, which included an unsworn letter from the complainant asking for leniency.

The minority shareholders of Ford Canada dissented from a squeeze-out transaction and sought fair value for their shares, along with an oppression remedy against Ford Canada and Ford U.S. regarding a transfer pricing system that caused the Canadian subsidiary to lose money over a ten-year period.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the transfer pricing system was oppressive and that the business judgment rule did not protect the directors.

However, the Court reversed the dismissal of the oppression claim against Ford U.S., finding that the parent company's actions were oppressive.

The Court also held that minority shareholders were not entitled to compensation for historical oppression that occurred before they acquired their shares, and that fair value does not include a component for historical oppression.

The trial judge's order directing a reference to a Master to determine shareholdings was set aside.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent 34 months' notice (30 months base plus 4 months Wallace damages) for wrongful dismissal.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in awarding a base notice period in excess of 24 months without exceptional circumstances, reducing the base period to 24 months.

The court upheld the 4-month Wallace extension due to the appellants' bad faith conduct during the dismissal.

The court also varied the prejudgment interest award, holding that interest should be calculated on an installment basis rather than a lump sum basis for the period during which salary continuance payments were made.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion in writing to extend the time for perfecting his appeal and to dispense with the requirement to file an appeal book and compendium.

The Court of Appeal granted the extension of time due to the appellant's health issues, extending the deadline to February 3, 2006.

However, the court denied the request to dispense with the appeal book and compendium, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that such relief was necessary in the interest of justice under Rule 61.09(4).

The appellant appealed her conviction and sentence for theft involving a breach of trust while employed by a trustee-in-bankruptcy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the circumstantial evidence supported the trial judge's finding of culpability and that the W. (D.) framework was properly applied.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, setting aside the six-month custodial sentence and substituting a six-month conditional sentence, noting the appellant was a first offender, the primary caregiver for two disabled children, and that the employer had made the affected clients whole.