Paul Stuart Schwartzman

The plaintiff, a former registered perfusionist employed by the defendant hospital, brought a motion for leave to amend his statement of claim in a wrongful dismissal and human rights action, to transfer the action from simplified to ordinary procedure, and to impose a litigation timetable.

The proposed amendments added 48 new paragraphs, claims for moral/aggravated and punitive damages, and detailed factual allegations responding to the defence.

The court granted the motion in part, permitting most amendments as particularizations of the existing causes of action, but refused amendments relating to a forced resignation in February 2022 and mitigation-related allegations as new causes of action raised outside the limitation period.

The court held that Richard Turcotte was constructively dismissed by Grenville Management Inc. when he was unilaterally laid off during the COVID-19 pandemic, as the employment agreement did not permit such a layoff without his consent.

The court rejected the employer’s argument that pandemic-related regulations suspended the right to claim constructive dismissal at common law.

Turcotte was awarded 16 months’ pay in lieu of notice, with no punitive or moral damages, as the employer’s conduct, while problematic, did not meet the threshold for such awards.

The defendants' counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record shortly before a scheduled wrongful dismissal trial.

The plaintiff opposed any adjournment of the trial date but did not oppose the removal of counsel.

The court granted the motion to remove counsel due to a breakdown in the relationship and lack of instructions following a corporate acquisition.

However, the court refused to adjourn the trial date, finding that the corporate defendant had ignored the approaching trial and that an adjournment would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff.

The judge conducted a second case conference in a wrongful dismissal action, aiming to schedule a summary judgment motion.

The court noted the prevalence of "tactical pleadings" that hinder efficient resolution and emphasized counsel's dual duty of advocacy and objective advice.

Due to the persistence of complex, potentially tactical claims (e.g., suing directors personally, asserting cause for dismissal based on old issues), the case was deemed unsuitable for summary judgment.

Instead, the judge issued detailed directions for trial preparation, including managing a motion for costs appeal, developing a hybrid trial plan, identifying witnesses, preparing a joint book of documents with hyperlinks, and considering witness testimony by affidavit.

The court encouraged settlement before incurring significant trial costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action following termination after approximately ten years of employment within a family-run corporate group.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff had been employed by two separate companies and that the earlier employer had terminated his employment prior to the transition.

The court held that the related corporations constituted a common employer due to common control, overlapping leadership, and integrated operations.

The court further found that the plaintiff had adequately mitigated his damages and that no genuine issue requiring a trial existed.

Summary judgment was granted, awarding damages for nine months’ notice plus out‑of‑pocket benefits losses.