Ryan Campbell

The defendant employer brought a motion to stay the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action, arguing the parties were bound by a mandatory arbitration clause in the plaintiff's employment contract.

The court first determined that the plaintiff, an insurance field agent, was an employee rather than an independent contractor.

The court then found that the second and third contracts, which introduced the arbitration clause, were invalid for lack of fresh consideration because they diminished the plaintiff's rights without providing any new benefit.

Consequently, the arbitration agreement was invalid under section 7(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, and the motion to stay the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff moved for certification of a class action alleging that insurance sales agents, known as 'producers', were misclassified by the defendants as independent contractors rather than employees.

The defendants opposed certification, arguing that the proposed class lacked commonality and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure because the current arrangement financially benefited most producers.

The court found that the criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act were met, noting that the core issue of misclassification was common to the class and that a class action was preferable to individual claims or Ministry of Labour complaints.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the plaintiff moved for judgment on admissions for unpaid commissions and for summary judgment on entitlement to reasonable notice, while the defendants cross‑moved for summary judgment limiting damages and dismissing certain claims.

The court granted judgment on admitted facts for $75,000 in unpaid commissions and held that the appropriate reasonable notice period at common law for an employee with approximately 11 months’ service was two months.

Because the employer had already paid two months’ salary and partial benefits continuation, only an additional six weeks of benefits was owed.

The claim against the parent holding company was dismissed and the plaintiff’s human rights discrimination claim was summarily dismissed for lack of evidence.

The remaining dispute regarding the calculation of additional commission entitlements was left for trial.