CITATION: Hall v. Jones DesLauriers Insurance Management Inc., 2015 ONSC 1438

COURT FILE NO.: cv-14-508764

DATE: 20150309

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Stephen Hall, Plaintiff

AND:

Jones DesLauriers Insurance Management Inc., Jones DesLauriers Group of Companies Ltd., Shawn Desantis, Robert Jones, Lori McDougall, Glenn Murray, Daniel Sgro, and Cory Struck, Defendants

AND:

Jones DesLauriers Insurance Management Inc. and Jones DesLauriers Group of Companies Ltd., Plaintiffs by Counterclaim

AND:

Stephen Hall, Brian Hall and Saggio Consulting Inc., Defendants by Counterclaim

BEFORE: Whitaker J.

COUNSEL: Christopher J. Cosgriff and B. Watkins, for the Plaintiff/Defendants by Counterclaim (needs clarification)

Martin Sclisizzi, for the Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim

HEARD: March 2, 2015

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The Plaintiff brings this summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that he was wrongfully dismissed from his employment with the Defendant Jones DeLauriers Insurance Management Inc. (“JDIMI”) on January 22, 2014.

[2] The Plaintiff seeks damages against JDIMI for wrongful dismissal in the amount of $554,908 as compensation in lieu of reasonable notice. The Plaintiff also seeks damages against JDIMI in the amount of $60,000 for failure to pay outstanding commissions owed to the Plaintiff.

[3] JDIMI is an insurance brokerage. The Plaintiff became employed with a predecessor of JDIMI as a producer in May, 1992. The Plaintiff’s employment was therefore continuous since May, 1992 until his termination on January 22, 2014.

[4] The Plaintiff became a shareholder of the Defendant in January, 2005, owning approximately 3% of the shares in the business. The parties agree that if I find that the Plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed he is entitled to at least one years’ salary as compensation in lieu of appropriate notice. The parties agree that the Plaintiff was dismissed on January 22, 2014. The Plaintiff maintains that he was dismissed without cause and therefore entitled to notice or pay in lieu of notice.

[5] The parties also agree that the Plaintiff did not take any clients with him nor did he solicit or contact any of the clients of JDIMI.

[6] In the months preceding the date of discharge, the Plaintiff quite candidly advised the Defendants that he was looking for a different type of work and had focused on the possibility of providing financial services that differed from the traditional insurance agency work. There was no doubt that the Plaintiff was planning to leave the Defendant’s business if he was not able to introduce the types of services he had explained he was contemplating. The parties also agree that there were two episodes of conduct which the Defendants rely upon to assert that there was cause for discharge. The first event was when the Plaintiff appeared at a trade show and identified himself as a representative of Stephen Hall and Associates. The Defendants take the position that this means that he was not dedicating himself full time to his current employer as was required by his employment contract and the second incident was a general sense on the part of the Defendants that the Plaintiff was not doing his best and he was not “redoubling his efforts”. Besides these two complaints there were no other grounds raised by the Defendants to justify cause for dismissal. Although mitigation is an issue, the Defendants were not able to show that the Plaintiff did not attempt to mitigate his losses.

[7] In my view, this is an appropriate cause for partial summary judgment. There is really very little in dispute between the parties; the length of his employment, the duties he performed, his income, the circumstances of his discharge, are all factually agreed. What is left is a Counterclaim and an oppression action, neither of which require evidence or adjudication on the issues which have been remitted to the Court here. It is quite likely that when this matter proceeds to trial, it will be significantly truncated so as to be adjudicated quickly. Once the parties have the answer of liability and quantum of damages determined for them there may be another opportunity to settle this matter.

[8] The Defendants assert that partial summary judgment adjudication will not permit the use of the process which is a proportionate way to resolve the dispute. In my view, it will do just that.

[9] Given the facts surrounding the discharge of the Plaintiff, those being policing the sign put up at the trade show and not “redoubling his efforts” to use the language of the Defendants, in my view, this type of conduct clearly cannot be considered grounds or cause for discharge. With respect to the redoubling of efforts, that is a nebulous and intangible type of conduct which clearly does not amount to cause or anything close to cause. With respect to the use of the identifying badge at the trade show, there is no evidence to suggest that any of the Defendants clients were induced by that to retain the Plaintiff for the advertised works. In conclusion, I find that there was no cause for the Plaintiff’s discharge and he is entitled to one year’s salary.

[10] The parties made submissions as to costs at the conclusion of the hearing. The Plaintiff is entitled to his costs inclusive of taxes and disbursements fixed at $20,000 payable forthwith.

Whitaker J.

Date: March 9, 2015