R. Vitols

The plaintiff employee, who had been on a prolonged medical leave of absence since 2012, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking termination and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, arguing his employment contract was frustrated due to illness.

The defendant employer argued frustration requires an act of the employer and denied the contract was frustrated.

The court held that frustration occurs as a matter of law when there is no reasonable likelihood of the employee returning to work, which occurred in October 2016 based on medical evidence.

The court granted summary judgment for the statutory entitlements but dismissed the plaintiff's claim for punitive and aggravated damages, finding the employer's conduct was not malicious.

The plaintiff rear-ended the defendant Middel after Middel was forced to brake suddenly when an unidentified vehicle cut him off.

Middel moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claim against him.

The co-defendant insurer, RBC, cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing Middel was at least 1% liable, which would release RBC from uninsured/unidentified motorist coverage, or alternatively, that the OPCF-44R family protection coverage was not triggered due to lack of independent corroboration.

The court granted Middel's motion, finding him 0% liable as he reacted reasonably to the sudden emergency.

The court dismissed RBC's cross-motion, holding that Middel's evidence constituted independent and material corroboration of the unidentified vehicle, thereby triggering the OPCF-44R coverage.