Court of Appeal for Ontario
Before: Hoy A.C.J.O., Gillese and Lauwers JJ.A.
Between
Darryl Reddy
Plaintiff (Respondent)
and
Freightliner Canada Inc. and Co-Operators Life Insurance Company
Defendants (Appellant)
Counsel:
Keith Geurts and Ellen Snow, for the appellant
Andrew Camman and Susan Toth, for the respondent
Heard: November 16, 2015
On appeal from the order of Justice Johanne N. Morissette of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 19, 2015.
ENDORSEMENT
1Daryl Reddy worked for Freightliner Canada Inc. (“Daimler”) from January 1998 to January 8, 2007, when Daimler terminated his employment. In the latter part of his employment, Mr. Reddy went on short-term disability because he had pericarditis. He returned to work but could not function well.
2On January 19, 2007, Mr. Reddy suffered a stroke as a result of the same sickness. He was left unable to speak or move the left-hand side of his body.
3Mr. Reddy’s attempt to obtain long-term disability benefits from Co-Operators Life Insurance Company (“Co-Operators”) – the company that had given him short-term disability benefits – was rejected because he was no longer employed by Daimler.
4Mr. Reddy sued Daimler and Co-Operators for, among other things, long-term disability benefits (“LTD”).
5Daimler defended the action and Mr. Reddy replied. In his reply (the “Reply”), Mr. Reddy claimed that Daimler had wrongfully terminated his employment.
6Daimler moved for summary judgment on the basis that Mr. Reddy raised wrongful dismissal as a new cause of action in his Reply and that cause of action was statute barred due to the passage of time.
7The motion judge dismissed the motion. She acknowledged that the statement of claim did not specifically plead that Mr. Reddy had been wrongfully dismissed but found that the failure to use those specific words was not fatal.
8After setting out the governing legal principles for determining whether the Reply raised a new cause of action, the motion judge concluded that it did not. At paras. 22-25 of her reasons, the motion judge stated:
22…One must review the statement of claim and its factual matrix to ascertain whether or not failing to specifically label a claim “wrongful dismissal” will be fatal.
23In this case, the statement of defence of Daimler demonstrates that it knew full well such was being pleaded as it denied liability for the elements of wrongful dismissal. It plead at para. 4 the following:
The plaintiff was employed by Daimler at its St. Thomas, Ontario plant from January 1998 to January 2007, when his employment was terminated for various misconduct. The St. Thomas plant was later closed in 2009.
24The Reply simply answers the allegation in the statement of defence that he was dismissed for cause.
25In my view, the lack of labelling “wrongful dismissal” in the statement of claim is not fatal because notice of the claim was made under the factual matrix that the defendant is allegedly in breach of the employment contract for “Wrongfully” denying the plaintiff his disability payments. The only reason why [Mr. Reddy’s] disability benefits were denied is because the plaintiff was terminated from his employment. [Emphasis added.]
9We agree with the motion judge, both as to the result and her reasons.
10The claim of wrongful dismissal came as no surprise to Daimler. Indeed, it defended the claim on the basis that Mr. Reddy’s employment was terminated for cause. At the core of Mr. Reddy’s claim is a set of facts establishing an employment relationship and contract, that the employment contract was breached at a result of termination without notice, and that damages flowed from the breach, including loss of LTD benefits.
11Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent fixed at $10,000, all inclusive.
“Alexandra Hoy A.C.J.O.”
“E.E. Gillese J.A.”
“P. Lauwers J.A.”