Samantha Lucifora

The plaintiffs, who operate a specialized First Nations Specific Claims insurance business, brought a motion for an interlocutory and permanent injunction against former employees and independent contractors who started a competing brokerage.

The plaintiffs sought to prohibit the defendants from competing, soliciting clients, and using confidential information.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no non-competition or non-solicitation agreements existed, and the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the defendants misused proprietary information.

The court ordered the defendants to return and delete any of the plaintiffs' confidential information in their possession, as proposed by the defendants.

The appellant, Microsoft Canada Inc., appealed a trial decision that awarded the respondent, a former employee, unvested stock awards after his termination without cause.

The trial judge had found the termination provisions in the Stock Award Agreement unenforceable because they were "harsh and oppressive" and not brought to the respondent's attention.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in concluding the respondent received no notice, as the respondent had expressly agreed to the terms for 16 years by clicking an acceptance box, despite consciously choosing not to read the agreement.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claim for constructive dismissal and other related relief.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision to focus on the constructive dismissal claim, as it was central to all other claims (intentional infliction of mental distress, human rights violation, punitive damages).

The court also upheld the motion judge's refusal to grant an adjournment and her approach to summary judgment, noting that the employer had made reasonable efforts to accommodate the appellant, which were frustrated by the appellant's non-compliance.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff, a long-term employee, was terminated without cause.

The trial addressed the appropriate notice period, entitlement to cash bonuses and merit increases (both for the fiscal year of termination and during the notice period), entitlement to vesting of unvested stock awards, and the defendant's claim of failure to mitigate damages.

The court awarded a 23.75-month notice period, damages for lost bonus and merit increases during the notice period, and damages for unvested stock awards, finding the termination provisions in the stock agreements unenforceable due to lack of proper notice.

The claim for a bonus for the fiscal year of termination was dismissed, and the defendant failed to prove a failure to mitigate.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee damages for wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge found no cause for termination and awarded damages based on a 19-month notice period, a 2015 bonus, aggravated damages of $25,000, and punitive damages of $100,000.

The appellant challenged each component of the award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact.

The court upheld the trial judge's reasoning on the notice period, bonus entitlement, aggravated damages based on the employer's threatening conduct and bad faith, and punitive damages reflecting the employer's strategic use of a counter-claim to intimidate the employee.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's statement of claim in an employment dispute over unpaid commissions, and sought to make an interlocutory injunction permanent.

The court also addressed the distribution of materials seized under an Anton Piller order.

The court declined to make the injunction permanent, finding the test was not met and damages would be an adequate remedy.

The court refused to strike the claims for unpaid commissions based on the limitation period, as discoverability was a genuine issue for trial.

However, the court struck the claims for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation and loss of future income, granting the plaintiff leave to amend.

Following a successful 11-day trial where the plaintiff was awarded $604,627.09 and the defendant's $1.75 million counterclaim was dismissed, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $546,684.73.

The defendant argued for a reduced award of $200,000, claiming the plaintiff's costs were unreasonable.

The court awarded the plaintiff the full amount claimed, finding the costs proportionate to the result, justified by the defendant's unfounded fraud allegations, litigation misconduct (including refusal to admit facts, late disclosure, and causing trial delays), and the complexity introduced by the counterclaim.

The court also noted the plaintiff's counsel's superior preparedness compared to the defendant's.

A senior executive sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for alleged financial fraud, while the employer counterclaimed in civil fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty arising from accounting treatment, inventory reserves, and intercompany transfers.

The court found the employer failed to prove the alleged dishonest conduct, failed to substantiate its fraud theory through direct witnesses or documentary support, and did not establish just cause.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court fixed reasonable notice at 19 months and awarded salary, bonus, benefits, RRSP contributions, punitive damages, and moral damages.

The counterclaims for civil fraud and unjust enrichment were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's finding that she was an independent contractor rather than a dependent contractor.

The appellant conceded the trial judge used the correct legal test from McKee v. Reid’s Heritage Homes Ltd., but argued he erred in its application.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge properly considered the factors of economic dependency, exclusivity, and permanency, and that his findings were open to him on the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $8,000.

The court determined the costs award following a successful summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $52,000, while the defendant proposed $5,000 to $10,000.

The court initially adjusted the parties' agreed partial indemnity estimate of $35,000 to $30,000 due to both parties prolonging litigation.

Further adjustments were made for counsel's hourly rates and the simplified procedure rule, leading to a partial indemnity award of $27,500.

The plaintiff's Rule 49 offer did not trigger substantial indemnity due to an unpleaded human rights allocation and an insufficient differential in after-tax values.

The plaintiff, a long-term employee, was terminated for cause by the defendant employer, Best Buy, on grounds of conflict of interest and dishonesty.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal.

The court found that the employer failed to establish either ground for just cause.

The alleged conflict of interest (operating a competing repair service) was based on outdated ads and never materialized, and the accusation of reselling products for profit was unsubstantiated.

The dishonesty claim was also not proven, as the plaintiff's explanations were reasonable or related to a personal medical condition.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed and entitled to 11 months' notice, calculating total damages.

The appellant was wrongfully dismissed after 14 years of employment.

The motion judge awarded a 17-month reasonable notice period but denied damages for lost bonuses, finding the bonus plan required 'active employment'.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in principle by focusing on whether the 'active employment' term was ambiguous rather than whether it unambiguously limited the appellant's common law right to damages.

The Court found the term did not oust the common law entitlement and awarded the appellant damages for the bonuses he would have earned during the notice period.