Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Hall v. Jones DesLauriers Insurance Management Inc., 2016 ONCA 877

Date: 2016-11-18

Docket: C60206

Before: Feldman, Lauwers and Miller JJ.A.

Between:

Stephen Hall

Plaintiff (Respondent)

and

Jones DesLauriers Insurance Management Inc., Jones DesLauriers Group of Companies Ltd., Shawn Desantis, Robert Jones, Lori McDougall, Glenn Murray, Daniel Sgro and Cory Struck

Defendants (Appellants)

Counsel:

Martin Sclisizzi, for the appellants

Christopher Cosgriffe and R. Watkins, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: November 14, 2016

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Kevin W. Whitaker of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 9, 2015.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The motion judge granted partial summary judgment allowing the action for wrongful dismissal and awarding damages based on one year. The motion judge gave initial reasons for his decision, then allowed a re-hearing of the motion based on evidence that was ordered preserved at the original hearing, but only produced and cross-examined upon afterward. That evidence included an employment contract with another firm that was signed by the respondent after the termination, but was sent to the respondent before the termination. The motion judge held that the new evidence was inadmissible, but in any event would not have affected his decision. The motion judge also declined to order a stay pending trial of the counter-claim and oppression action.

[2] In our view the order below must be set aside. The motion judge erred in failing to admit the new evidence. That evidence raised issues regarding the respondent’s actions and intentions around the time of his dismissal that had to be addressed by the motion judge before granting summary judgment for wrongful dismissal. His failure to do so undermines the reliability of his decision on the key issue. The motion judge also mistakenly believed that the damages based on one year had been agreed. The quantum of damages and the issue of mitigation were, however, live issues.

[3] As there is to be a trial of the counter-claim and the oppression action where credibility findings will be made, in our view this is a proper case where the entire matter should be referred for trial.

[4] The appeal is therefore allowed. The order below set aside with costs of the appeal in the agreed amount of $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

“K. Feldman J.A.”

“P. Lauwers J.A.”

“B.W. Miller J.A.”