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 appellant appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action.

The trial judge had found that the termination clause in the appellant's employment agreement was enforceable and clearly rebutted the common law presumption of reasonable notice, limiting his entitlement to the minimums under applicable employment standards legislation.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's objective interpretation of the contract and dismissed the appeal.

The parties sought costs following three segments of the discovery process, including motions for undertakings and refusals.

The plaintiff claimed misappropriation by a former employee who started a competing business, while the defendant counterclaimed for wrongful dismissal.

The Master awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff for its successful refusals motion, partial indemnity costs to the defendants for their refusals motion (deferring expert costs to the trial judge), and ordered costs in the cause for both parties regarding a third motion involving aborted discoveries.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than a year after the termination of her employment.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant argued she mistakenly believed she had two years to file and that her disability caused anxiety.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's mistaken belief and health issues did not establish good faith, as she was able to retain counsel and pursue employment standards claims during the same period.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action following termination without cause.

The employer relied on an employment contract purporting to limit termination entitlements to those provided under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and to exclude any common law damages.

The court held the termination clause was unenforceable because it limited compensation to salary and failed to ensure continuation of benefits during the statutory notice period, contrary to s. 61(1) of the ESA and therefore void under s. 5(1).

As a result, the plaintiff was entitled to pursue common law reasonable notice.

The court determined that prior service with the predecessor company following insolvency and a CCAA restructuring should not be credited for common law notice purposes and awarded eight months’ reasonable notice.

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.

The Township of McGarry brought an application objecting to a Review Officer's Order regarding pay equity.

The application was unopposed after the complaining employee resolved her issues and withdrew.

Based on affidavit evidence, the Tribunal found that the Township had not failed to maintain pay equity prior to April 28, 2008, and that the values assigned to job classes by the joint job evaluation committee were reasonable.

The Review Officer's Order was rescinded, rendering the Pay Equity Office's compliance application moot.