Sabatina Vassalli

The plaintiff, Michael Chalmers, brought a motion for summary judgment against his former employer, Airways Transit Service Limited, and its owner, Badder Capital Group Limited, for constructive dismissal.

Chalmers was laid off in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and was never recalled, despite other management staff returning to work.

Airways Transit argued that Ontario Regulation 228/20 (Infectious Diseases Emergency Leave) precluded a common law constructive dismissal claim.

The court rejected this argument, affirming that the ESA does not displace common law remedies.

The court found that Chalmers was constructively dismissed as of June 4, 2020, when Airways Transit effectively phased him out due to his high salary.

The court awarded Chalmers 25 months' reasonable notice, including a "COVID bump," and $30,000 in punitive damages for the employer's high-handed and misleading conduct, while declining aggravated/moral damages.

The plaintiff, a volunteer fire captain and administrative assistant, was terminated without cause by the municipality's CAO based on unfounded, sexist rumours and gossip.

The court found the termination was conducted in bad faith and was tainted by patent gender-based discrimination.

The CAO also made defamatory statements about the plaintiff to the municipal council, which lost the protection of qualified privilege due to malice.

The court awarded the plaintiff six months' reasonable notice, $75,000 in moral damages, $35,000 for Human Rights Code violations, $20,000 for defamation, and $60,000 in punitive damages.

During a wrongful dismissal trial, the plaintiff sought disclosure of a recording of a closed municipal council meeting where her termination was discussed.

The defendants claimed solicitor-client, settlement, litigation, and confidential communications privilege.

Applying the Wigmore criteria, the court ordered partial disclosure.

The portion of the recording where the CAO justified the termination decision was ordered disclosed, as the benefit to the litigation outweighed the injury to the municipal relationship.

However, portions involving legal advice, anticipated negotiations, and council questions remained privileged.

The appellant (defendant at trial) appealed a judgment awarding damages for a respiratory injury allegedly caused by being sprayed with a fire extinguisher.

The appeal raised issues regarding the admission of participant expert evidence, the adequacy of the trial judge's reasons for not considering defence expert evidence on causation, and the quantum of non-pecuniary damages.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons insufficient for failing to analyze the appellant's expert evidence on the diagnosis of Reactive Airways Disorder Syndrome (RADS) and for relying on an unqualified expert's incorrect summary of other specialists' views.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial ordered.

The plaintiff, Deborah Tilli, brought an action for damages for personal injuries sustained in a physical altercation with another student, Erica DiTomaso, at school.

The action also alleged negligent supervision against the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board and its teachers.

The court found no liability on the part of the school board, determining that its supervision policy met the standard of a careful and prudent parent for 15-year-old students.

However, the court found Erica DiTomaso liable for battery, concluding that while the initial altercation was a "consent fight," DiTomaso used excessive and unreasonable force by banging the plaintiff's head on the floor.

Damages were mitigated by the plaintiff's provocation (name-calling), resulting in DiTomaso being 60% responsible and the plaintiff 40% responsible for her injuries.

The plaintiff was shopping at the defendant's store when an employee accidentally discharged a fire extinguisher in his face.

The defendant admitted liability but disputed causation and damages, arguing the plaintiff's subsequent severe respiratory issues were a natural progression of a pre-existing illness.

The court applied the 'but for' test and the thin skull doctrine, finding that the incident caused the plaintiff to develop Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome (RADS).

The court awarded the plaintiff $225,000 in non-pecuniary damages, along with significant awards for past and future income loss, and subrogated claims.