Porter Heffernan

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend his statement of claim to properly plead defamation against his former employer, the hospital, and to add a former colleague as a defendant.

The court found that the proposed amended pleading failed to plead the requisite elements of defamation with sufficient particularity, as it did not identify the defamatory words, when they were spoken, or to whom.

Consequently, the motion to amend was dismissed, the motion to add the new defendant was dismissed, and the action was dismissed in its entirety.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff was an employee covered by a collective agreement and the dispute should be resolved by a labour arbitrator.

The plaintiff argued he was misclassified as an independent contractor and his claim was rooted in a pre-employment contract.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature as the existence of a pre-employment agreement is a disputed factual issue that must be determined at trial, not on a pleadings motion.

The defendant hospital brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff former employee's action for damages arising from alleged workplace harassment, defamation, and other torts.

The court found that the majority of the claims fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator under the collective agreement and dismissed them.

The remaining claims for threats and poisoning were struck for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, while the plaintiff was granted leave to amend the pleadings regarding the defamation claims.

The defendant sought costs following its successful motion for summary judgment which dismissed the plaintiffs' action as statute-barred.

The defendant claimed $37,691.87 in total costs, while the plaintiffs argued for $22,575.67.

The court reduced the defendant's fees due to duplication of work by senior and junior counsel and disallowed certain disbursements, including computer research charges.

Costs were fixed at $32,802.35 on a partial indemnity basis, payable by the plaintiffs within 60 days.

The plaintiffs, a commercial real estate broker and his company, brought an action against the defendant brokerage firm seeking a declaration that their independent contractor agreement was terminated without cause, thereby forgiving a $225,000 loan.

The defendant counterclaimed for repayment of the loan, alleging the plaintiff terminated the agreement or was terminated for default.

The court rectified the agreement to include a mistakenly omitted provision regarding the plaintiff's leadership role and analyzed the interpretation of the plaintiff's role as the Ottawa Practice Lead for investments, finding that no strict $10 million ceiling was placed on the plaintiff's transactions.

Following a motion in a labour dispute concerning airport picketing activity, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving parties sought relief relating to noise-making during picketing or relocation of picketers closer to airport entrances, but the motion was largely unsuccessful.

Although the court vacated certain trespass notices and relocated the picketers to a more visible area, it found that the plaintiff achieved the more favourable result and incurred significant costs responding to the motion.

The court was particularly critical of false statements made in an affidavit by one of the moving parties, which required cross-examination and additional evidence to refute.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis.

Union members subject to an injunction restricting protest activity at an international airport brought a motion to clarify or vary the existing order.

The dispute concerned whether drumming and other loud noise-making during picketing violated the injunction and whether trespass notices issued to certain union members were valid.

The court found the noise created a nuisance interfering with airport operations and safety obligations, particularly the ability to communicate during emergencies.

The injunction was varied to relocate picketers to a designated grassy area near the parkade and to prohibit the use of drums, improvised percussive devices, or amplification devices on airport premises.

Trespass notices issued to several individuals were ordered withdrawn.

The defendant territorial government brought a motion to dismiss or permanently stay a wrongful dismissal action commenced in Ontario by a former employee who had worked in Nunavut.

The court applied the jurisdiction simpliciter test from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda to determine whether a real and substantial connection existed between the dispute and Ontario.

The plaintiff relied on factors including recruitment activities, an Ottawa liaison office, the use of an Ontario-based investigator, and the administration of disability benefits in Ontario.

The court held these did not establish that the defendant carried on business in Ontario and therefore no presumptive connecting factor existed.

In any event, the court found that Nunavut would clearly be the more appropriate forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a claim alleging breach of restrictive covenants, fiduciary duties, and misuse of confidential information after a former employee joined a competitor.

The court held that the employee did not occupy a fiduciary role and that the non‑competition and non‑solicitation clauses in the employment agreement were unenforceable due to overbreadth and ambiguity.

The plaintiff failed to produce evidence supporting allegations that confidential information had been misused and sought discovery in the hope of uncovering evidence.

Applying the culture shift in summary judgment analysis articulated in Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court held that requiring discovery would amount to an impermissible fishing expedition and that the matter could be fairly determined on the existing record.

Summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.