Court File and Parties
CITATION: Johnson v. Metroland Media Group Ltd., 2014 ONSC 3507
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 386/13
DATE: 20140609
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
HEATHER JOHNSON Plaintiff (Respondent)
– and –
METROLAND MEDIA GROUP LTD. Defendant (Appellant)
David Edward Greenwood, for the Plaintiff (Respondent)
Jason Mathew Green, for the Defendant (Appellant)
HEARD at Toronto: June 9, 2014
Oral Reasons for Judgment
DAMBROT J. (orally)
[1] The trial judge found that the respondent was owed $10,108.55 in unpaid short-term disability benefits by Metroland.
[2] There is no dispute that the respondent was entitled to short-term disability benefits under her contract of employment. The dispute related to the method of calculation. The trial judge concluded that the respondent’s benefits were to be calculated on the basis of Metroland’s written short-term disability policy, as described in Metroland’s Employee Handbook.
[3] Although an excerpt from the handbook setting out this method of calculation was provided to the respondent when she went on disability, Metroland led evidence at trial that the respondent was not included in the term “Commissioned Sales Staff” in the handbook and that this method of calculation didn’t apply to her. The basis for the different method for calculation of the benefits asserted by Metroland was said to be an unwritten policy or practice that only applied to employees holding the appellant’s job title. The trial judge rejected this evidence. He held that the best evidence of the appellant’s entitlement was in the handbook and rejected the evidence of the unwritten policy. He further concluded that based on the correct calculation of the respondent’s benefits, she suffered damages in the amount mentioned.
[4] I see no basis to interfere with these findings. Despite the able argument of Mr. Green, these are finding of facts or mixed fact and law at worst and I see no palpable or overriding error in them.
[5] The appellant raised several other grounds of appeal concerning the drawing of adverse inferences, the failure to plead the parole evidence rule and s. 25 of the Courts of Justice Act. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there were errors in the reasons in respect of any of these issues, none of them affected the essential findings of facts made by the trial judge. The appeal is dismissed.
COSTS
[6] I have endorsed the Appeal Book, “Appeal dismissed in accordance with oral endorsement delivered in Court today. Costs fixed at $8,000 all in.”
DAMBROT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 9, 2014
Date of Release: June 16, 2014
CITATION: Johnson v. Metroland Media Group Ltd., 2014 ONSC 3507
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 386/13
DATE: 20140609
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
DAMBROT J.
BETWEEN:
HEATHER JOHNSON Plaintiff (Respondent)
– and –
METROLAND MEDIA GROUP LTD. Defendant (Appellant)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DAMBROT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 9, 2014
Date of Release: June 16, 2014