Paul Daniel Boshyk

The appellant employer terminated the respondent employee for just cause following an investigation into a co-worker's complaint of sexual harassment.

The employee refused to apologize for the inappropriate comments, although he agreed to sensitivity training.

The trial judge found the termination was not justified, awarding damages in lieu of notice.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the trial judge erred in failing to properly apply the just cause test, specifically by not characterizing the employee's conduct as sexual harassment and by focusing solely on the refusal to apologize.

The Court determined that the employee's sexually harassing comments, coupled with his lack of remorse and refusal to comply with the employer's reasonable disciplinary requirement of an apology, constituted an irreparable breakdown in the employment relationship, justifying termination for cause.

The appeal was allowed, and the employee's claim was dismissed.

Following an eight-day trial where the plaintiff obtained judgment for $187,000 plus prejudgment interest, the parties submitted written arguments on costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs to the date of his Offer to Settle and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, arguing his Offer was more favourable than the judgment.

The defendant contended that substantial indemnity costs were unwarranted due to the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for aggravated, punitive, and special damages.

The court found the plaintiff's Offer to Settle complied with Rule 49 and was more favourable, entitling him to partial indemnity costs to the offer date and substantial indemnity thereafter.

Despite insufficient detail in both parties' costs submissions, the court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $145,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, plus prejudgment interest at 0.8%.

The plaintiff, a 60-year-old Senior Product Designer with 20 years of service, was summarily dismissed for cause following a co-worker's complaint of inappropriate comments.

The employer concluded the comments were harassing and required the plaintiff to undergo training and apologize.

After the plaintiff, through counsel, agreed to training but refused an apology admitting wrongdoing, the employer terminated his employment for "irreparable breakdown in the employment relationship," citing inappropriate comments, lack of remorse, and insubordination.

The court found that the plaintiff's conduct did not justify summary termination for cause, noting the employer's apparent motivation was the plaintiff consulting a lawyer rather than the alleged harassment.

The court awarded the plaintiff 20 months' notice in damages, declining to reduce for mitigation given the specialized field and lack of employer support, and denied aggravated or punitive damages.

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 appellant company appealed a trial decision finding that two kitchen cabinet installers were dependent contractors entitled to 26 months' reasonable notice upon termination.

The appellants argued the workers were independent contractors because they had performed some work for a competitor in the two years prior to termination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that exclusivity must be assessed over the full history of the relationship, during which the workers had served the company almost exclusively for over 25 years.

The Court also upheld the 26-month notice period, finding that the workers' age, length of service, and economic dependence constituted exceptional circumstances justifying an award beyond the usual 24-month cap.

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.

Following a two‑day civil trial, the court determined the issue of costs after the parties were unable to agree.

Both sides argued that they had beaten their respective offers to settle, but the court found neither offer engaged the cost consequences under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis throughout.

However, the court reduced the amount sought due to concerns about the hourly rate claimed, the matter having been suitable for the Simplified Procedure, and duplication arising from multiple legal professionals working on the file.

The court fixed costs at $12,500 plus HST and undisputed disbursements.

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.