Robert A. Konduros

The appellant appealed a partial summary judgment order that dismissed some of his claims (spoliation, intentional infliction of mental suffering) but directed a mini-trial for others (defamation, breach of contract).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the interlocutory aspects without leave from the Divisional Court, that the appeal was improperly framed, and that it was premature as the summary judgment motion was not yet complete.

The court emphasized judicial economy and the need to avoid fragmented proceedings.

The defendant, Rogers Communications Canada Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff, Andrew Athanassiades's, claim for damages arising from alleged failure to provide internet service, intentional infliction of mental suffering, defamation, and breach of contract.

The court dismissed the claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering, finding no evidence of flagrant or outrageous conduct calculated to cause harm.

However, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the defamation claim, necessitating oral evidence from both parties.

Further submissions were also required for the breach of contract claim to determine if a genuine issue for trial existed given the apparent mutual agreement to rescind the contract.

The plaintiff, Joseph Miller, brought an action against his former employer, Ontario Potato Distribution Inc., for constructive or wrongful dismissal, alleging a hostile work environment due to a threatening incident.

The defendant contended the plaintiff voluntarily resigned.

The court, applying principles of credibility and valid resignation, found the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged incident or the defendant's involvement, concluding the resignation was voluntary.

Consequently, the action for wrongful dismissal was dismissed.

The court also discussed, in obiter, the appropriate notice period and the contentious issue of CERB payment deductibility from damages.

Following the defendant's unsuccessful motion for summary judgment, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought full indemnity costs of $70,777.55, while the defendant argued for no costs or costs on the Small Claims Court scale.

The court found no basis for full or substantial indemnity costs, nor for restricting costs to the Small Claims Court scale, noting the motion involved a novel issue regarding Infectious Disease Emergency Leave.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $22,840.13.

The defendant employer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's constructive dismissal action, arguing that the temporary layoff was deemed an Infectious Disease Emergency Leave under O. Reg 228/20 of the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the IDEL Regulation does not displace an employee's common law right to pursue a civil claim for constructive dismissal, as section 8(1) of the Act expressly preserves civil remedies.

The court directed a summary trial on the remaining issue of whether the employer had just cause for termination.

In a personal injury action, the defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce a further and better affidavit of documents and to pay for the production of pre-accident medical records.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant should bear the cost of obtaining records not currently in her possession.

The court held that routine pre-accident medical records are relevant and producible at the plaintiff's expense, as they are a standard part of personal injury litigation.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action.

The appellant was employed as a production supervisor and was terminated for cause after approximately 19.5 years of continuous employment.

The termination was based on his allowing 1,500 defective camshafts with roping marks to be processed during his shift and subsequently lying about the incident.

The trial judge found that the appellant's failure to supervise, combined with his dishonesty, constituted just cause for termination.

The appellant argued the trial judge reversed the onus of proof and demonstrated bias.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in the application of the just cause test and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The respondent employee was entirely successful on an appeal from a Small Claims Court decision regarding wrongful dismissal.

The court received written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $12,915.90, while the appellant employer argued each party should bear their own costs or alternatively pay $7,300.

The court rejected the appellant's argument for no costs and found no justification for full indemnity.

The court fixed the respondent's costs on a partial indemnity basis at $8,500 plus HST.