Paul Boshyk

The plaintiff, a former officer and director of the defendant mining company, sued for wrongful dismissal seeking over $2.3 million under a 2008 Management Consulting Agreement.

The defendant argued the agreement was unenforceable due to the plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty in its negotiation and that, in any event, the plaintiff was terminated for just cause.

The court found the 2008 agreement was the product of a flawed process and contained unfair terms, constituting a breach of fiduciary duty.

Furthermore, the court held the plaintiff's subsequent conduct, including installing hidden cameras, issuing unauthorized press releases, and trading shares during blackout periods, provided just cause for termination.

The action was dismissed.

The defendants in a lawyer negligence action brought a motion seeking an order that their action be tried simultaneously or consecutively with a related wrongful dismissal action involving overlapping factual and legal issues.

The court considered Rule 6 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the policy in s.138 of the Courts of Justice Act favouring the avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings.

The judge found substantial commonality of issues, particularly regarding whether alleged professional negligence caused the loss of damages sought in the wrongful dismissal claim.

Separate trials risked duplication of evidence, inconsistent findings, and unnecessary expense.

The court ordered that the two actions be tried together or consecutively, subject to the discretion of the trial judge.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of claims for wrongful dismissal and wrongful/arbitrary detention.

The court held that the claims were statute‑barred under s. 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002 and that the wrongful dismissal claim was additionally barred by s. 97(2) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and the doctrine of issue estoppel, as the plaintiff had previously pursued an ESA complaint regarding the same termination and was found to have resigned.

The court declined to grant summary judgment dismissing the claim for malicious prosecution because the defendants relied exclusively on hearsay affidavit evidence and failed to meet the evidentiary burden required on a summary judgment motion.

An alternative argument that the statement of claim was deficient was not adjudicated because such relief must be brought before a master.

The motion therefore succeeded only in part.

The grandchildren beneficiaries of an estate brought a motion to set aside releases they had previously signed regarding the estate trustees' accounts, and to dispense with mandatory mediation for a subsequent passing of accounts.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the attempt to set aside the releases was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as it was brought more than two years after the releases were signed.

Furthermore, the court found no legal basis to set aside the releases, as they were signed under seal and there was no evidence of duress or lack of understanding.

The court also declined to dispense with mandatory mediation, noting its general utility in estate disputes.

The plaintiff brought an action for libel against the defendants regarding an article published in a South Korean newspaper and on its website.

The defendant author argued the action was statute-barred under the Libel and Slander Act and the Limitations Act, 2002, and that the words were not defamatory.

The court found that the notice and limitation provisions of the Libel and Slander Act did not apply as the newspaper was not printed and published in Ontario, and even if they did, the action was commenced in time based on the discoverability principle.

The court held the article was defamatory and the author's conduct was reckless and malicious.

The plaintiff was awarded $12,000 in general damages, $5,000 in punitive damages, and a permanent injunction.