Peter A. Simm

The applicant, a pediatric surgeon, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent his employer, the Hospital for Sick Children, from suspending him with pay during an investigation into allegations of workplace misconduct.

The court applied the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions.

It found no serious question to be tried, concluding that an employer has an implied power to suspend an employee with pay for administrative reasons related to misconduct allegations, provided the suspension is necessary, in good faith, temporary, and with pay, as per Cabiakman.

The court also found no irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages and determined that the balance of convenience favored the Hospital, as the suspension was crucial for a fair investigation and patient care.

The application for an injunction was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The defendant brought a motion to stay a wrongful dismissal action on the basis that Ontario was a forum non conveniens and that the dispute should instead be litigated in New York State.

The court accepted that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because the defendant corporation maintained its registered head office in Ontario.

Applying the forum non conveniens analysis from leading authorities, the court held that the moving party had not established that New York was clearly the more appropriate forum.

Factors such as the Ontario employment contract, the defendant’s presence-based jurisdiction in Ontario, and the loss of legitimate juridical advantages in a U.S. at‑will employment regime supported maintaining the action in Ontario.

The motion to stay the proceeding was therefore dismissed.