COURT FILE NO.: CV 937/19
DATE: 20210521
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
TODD SPECK
Plaintiff
– and –
GOLDBLATT PARTNERS LLP, MARISSA POLLOCK, KELLY DOCTOR, ELISA MESITI, ROBERT SMALLEY, DAVE BULMER, CYNTHIA WATT, GLYNN ROBINSON, LISA COMPAGNONE and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO
Defendants
Self-represented
D. Mayer for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and Lisa Compagnone
J. Schachter for Elisa Mestiti, Robert Smalley, Dave Bulmer, Cynthia Watt and Glynn Robinson
D. Williams and M. Khami for Goldblatt Partners LLP, Marissa Pollock and Kelly Doctor
HEARD: February 8, 2021
MCARTHUR, J.
INTRODUCTION
[1] Mr. Speck was terminated as an employee of the Crown in February 2014. The employment relationship was governed by collective agreements between the Crown and the Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario (AMAPCEO).
[2] A series of proceedings were brought that involved the plaintiff including an action and administrative proceedings against the Crown and its employees, most of which have been disposed of. There was proceeding before the Divisional Court in which a decision has since been rendered on April 28, 2021 as Speck v. OLRB, 2021 ONSC 3176.
[3] This action was commenced by a notice of action issued on May 8, 2019.
The Plaintiff’s claims and allegations
[4] Mr. Speck claims against three groups of defendants;
a. the representatives of AMAPCEO,
b. the Goldblatt defendants as lawyers for AMAPCEO, and
c. Ms. Compagnone as legal counsel for and on behalf of the Crown in relation to the labour grievances.
[5] Among other allegations, Mr. Speck claims some of the defendants together committed the tort of misfeasance in public office alleging Ms. Compagnone knew the Crown could not sustain a claim of just cause for termination of his employment.
[6] Mr. Speck also alleges a flagrant breach of law to nevertheless take the matter to arbitration.
[7] He also alleges generally that all defendants conspired together to deny him his right to a fair hearing during the grievance arbitration proceedings.
The defendants’ various positions
[8] Collectively, the defendants request an order striking the statement of claim without leave to amend and/or dismissing the action against each of them.
[9] The defendants, Ms. Compagnone and the Crown, submit that the allegations against Ms. Compagnone are merely a reformulation of prior allegations against the Crown and others in an earlier action where it was found that the issue of Mr. Speck’s termination was within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator. These and other defendants submit this action is barred by the application of res judicata, cause of action estoppel and is otherwise an abuse of process. The defendants also submit these issues were also raised in the application alleging a breach of duty of fair representation before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
[10] These defendants maintain that the plaintiff’s remedies regarding his termination of employment or the arbitration process are properly for a labour arbitrator, the Ontario Labour Relations Board or by way of an application for judicial review.
[11] Alternately, these defendants submit the allegations fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator or the Ontario Labour Relations Board and, in any event, the plaintiff has failed to plead a reasonable cause of action against the Crown defendants or provided sufficient particularity concerning the elements of bad faith required for the torts alleged against the Crown defendants.
[12] The defendants also submit the plaintiff has made bald allegations and pled conclusions of law without pleading material facts supporting such conclusions.
[13] The Goldblatt defendants (Goldblatt Partners LLP, Marissa Pollock and Kelly Doctor) submit the action should be dismissed, there is no genuine issue for trial, the plaintiff’s claim is statute-barred, discloses no cause of action and is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court’s process and amounts to a collateral attack on the underlying litigation.
GENERAL BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff
[14] Mr. Speck worked as a program analyst for the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care since June 4, 2002 and then began a secondment as a student at law with the Legal Services Branch/Financial Services Commission of Ontario with the Ministry of the Attorney General.
[15] Mr. Speck’s employment was governed by a collective agreement between the Crown and AMAPCEO. AMAPCEO was the plaintiff’s trade union.
[16] In mid-February 2013, Mr. Speck was suspended with pay pending an investigation into allegations of workplace harassment, discrimination and violence.
The Defendants
[17] Ms. Compagnone is a lawyer employed with the Crown and was its legal counsel in the labour arbitration proceedings arising from the grievances filed after the termination of the plaintiff’s employment.
[18] The defendants Elsie Mesiti, Dave Bulmer, Cynthia Watt, Rob Smalley and Glynn Robinson are employees or agents of AMAPCEO and were allegedly involved in the plaintiff’s grievances.
[19] Goldblatt and Partners LLP and its lawyers Marissa Pollock and Kelly Doctor, represented AMAPCEO in the labour arbitration proceedings.
Termination
[20] In February 2014, during his secondment to Legal Services Branch/Financial Services Commission of Ontario, Mr. Speck’s employment was terminated. He had been suspended a year earlier.
Grievance proceedings
[21] Between early 2013 and mid-2014, AMAPCEO filed five separate grievances challenging the plaintiff’s termination.
[22] Mr. Speck was unsatisfied with AMAPCEO’s representation of his interests. He threatened to file an application with the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that AMAPCEO breached its duty of fair representation to him (commonly referred to as a DFR) under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.
[23] Four of the five grievances proceeded to arbitration before the Grievance Settlement Board over several days in 2014 and 2015.
[24] The plaintiff repeated the threat to commence a DFR application against AMAPCEO in emails dated August 22, October 24 and November 25, 2014 and September 22 and November 26, 2015.
[25] On April 4, 2016 AMAPCEO advised the plaintiff of its decision not to pursue the grievances further based on its assessment of the merits of the case. AMAPCEO advised that it would enter into settlement discussions with the employer at the next hearing date scheduled for May 3, 2016. The plaintiff failed to attend that hearing and failed to respond to a settlement proposal that AMAPCEO negotiated on his behalf.
[26] On October 5, 2016 the plaintiff again advised that he would be preparing a complaint against AMAPCEO to the OLRB. By reply on October 14, 2016, AMAPCEO advised the plaintiff that should he delay further in making his DFR complaint, the union reserved the right to object to the OLRB hearing based on undue delay.
[27] On March 3, 2017, the plaintiff was advised that AMAPCEO was withdrawing four of his five grievances and that he had the right to appeal this decision to AMAPCEO’s executive committee on March 29, 2017. He did appeal. The AMAPCEO executive committee considered the plaintiff’s appeal. On April 4, 2017, the secretary of AMAPCEO advised the plaintiff that the executive committee denied his appeal and that, as a result, the grievances would be withdrawn. On May 9, 2017, AMAPCEO formally withdrew the four grievances.
[28] On July 31, 2017, AMAPCEO advised the plaintiff that it would be withdrawing the fifth grievance and that he had the right to appeal this decision to the executive committee on October 4, 2017. The plaintiff chose not to appeal this decision and AMAPCEO formally withdrew the final grievance.
DFR Proceeding before OLRB
[29] On August 7, 2018, the plaintiff filed DFR application against AMAPCEO with the OLRB. The AMAPCEO defendants deny any of them breached a contractual duty of good faith or statutory duty of fair representation to the plaintiff. AMAPCEO requested the OLRB to dismiss the plaintiff’s application summarily on the ground of delay, or alternatively, because he had failed to disclose a prima facie case. On October 10, 2018 the OLRB invited the plaintiff to make submissions responding to that request which he did.
[30] On October 25, 2019, the OLRB released its decision exercising its discretion not to inquire into the complaint on the ground of undue delay. The OLRB also found no violation section 15 of the Charter and rejected both of the plaintiff’s arguments (1) that section 15 of the Charter required AMAPCEO to bring all grievances to arbitration and (2) that his complaint not be dismissed for delay.
[31] The plaintiff also commenced the following additional proceedings as outlined below.
Superior Court of Ontario
[32] The plaintiff brought a civil claim in the Superior Court against the Crown, Susan Fitzpatrick, Beverly Lyman, Pauline Ryan and James Docherty, in respect of a dispute arising from the collective agreement. Justice Rady dismissed this claim on October 27, 2016. Her decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
[33] This current action was issued on May 8, 2019.
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
[34] An application was also brought by the plaintiff to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario against AMAPCEO, Marissa Pollack, Kelly Doctor and Goldblatt and Partners LLP as well as the Ministry of Government Services. The plaintiff alleged that his rights under the Human Rights Code were violated and he was harassed in his former employment with the Crown. The allegations against the Crown were dismissed on the basis of delay on August 24, 2018 and the remaining parts of the application against AMAPCEO’s lawyers, Goldblatt and Partners, were dismissed as abandoned on February 11, 2019.
Divisional Court
[35] There was an application for judicial review of the OLRB determination. As mentioned, that decision was released on April 28, 2021. The decision of that court was pending at the date of the hearing of this motion. The Divisional Court dismissed Mr. Speck’s application for judicial review of the OLRB decision.
ANALYSIS
Action against the Crown and Ms. Compagnone
[36] In a statement of claim dated March 20, 2015, the plaintiff commenced an action against the Crown. In addition to the Crown, the plaintiff personally named his managers at the Ministry of Health. The plaintiff alleged that his managers conspired against him and acted maliciously by unlawfully conducting a workplace investigation and unjustly terminating his employment. Essentially, he alleged that his managers had concocted a plan to falsely accuse him of wrongdoing in order to justify terminating his employment.
[37] The Crown brought a motion to strike the 2015 action on the basis that the court did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter because the essential character of the dispute was workplace-related and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labour arbitrator in accordance with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Weber v. Ontario Hydro 1995 CanLII 108. Justice Rady dismissed the action and awarded the Crown costs. She stated as follows in her decision at 2016 ONSC 6581:
[32] I have concluded that notwithstanding the plaintiff’s artful pleading, the claim at its core arises from his employment relationship with the MOH; the disciplinary action taken as a result of his alleged misconduct; the ongoing investigation; and his subsequent termination. Put another way, the facts of the dispute and its essential character are all workplace related. The claim falls squarely within the ambit of the arbitration provision of the collective agreement and exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute lies in the arbitration process….
[38] Justice Rady’s decision was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal at 2017 ONCA 52. The Crown was awarded additional costs.
[39] Justice Rady had summarized the essential allegations of the plaintiff in paragraph 31 of her decision as falling into three broad categories as follows:
complaints about the discipline process while the plaintiff was with the Ministry of Health which includes a letter of reprimand, a period of suspension, an investigation of misconduct in the workplace, and the termination of his employment;
complaints about unfair treatment in the workplace, disagreements about the assignment of tasks and differences of opinion with management;
comments alleged to have been made by a person to other employees of the workplace
[40] In this action, the plaintiff alleges a conspiracy regarding the termination of his employment with the Crown and enlarges the group of individuals he alleges acted in concert to harm him, that is, the lawyers who represented AMAPCEO, employees or agents at AMAPCEO and Ms. Compagnone who acted for the Crown. Mr. Speck alleges Ms. Compagnone knew the plaintiff’s managers did not have just cause to terminate him because the reasons provided were a lie and illegal and that she acted on the plaintiff’s former manager’s instructions to pursue the grievances to arbitration.
[41] The Crown’s position is that the doctrine of res judicata applies, the action is an impermissible collateral attack and otherwise an abuse of process and, in any event, the court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the allegation raised in this action.
[42] The plaintiff submits that these defendants misapprehended the governing law, made no reference at all to the law nor referenced the allegations in the statement of claim and ought not, effectively, to have immunity from suit. As to the last feature, the plaintiff’s position is that there have never been any determination of the material facts and no determination has been made in any forum in relation to his employment or termination.
[43] Mr. Speck submits the claims against defendants arise as a result of acts and omissions in relation to proceedings that arose as a result of the termination of the plaintiff’s employment. The plaintiff also resists the suggestion there is a lack of jurisdiction of this court and that the cause of action in this action is entirely separate and distinct from the earlier action.
[44] I find that the doctrine of res judicata and, specifically, cause of action estoppel applies in this case. Justice Rady’s decision as outlined above is final and is clear. The parties in the past and present action are essentially the same. The Crown is the main party in both actions. Jurisdiction is certainly an obvious issue in this action as it was in the earlier one.
[45] Ms. Compagnone is not being sued for torts committed outside of her employment. The Crown is vicariously liable for torts committed by its employees pursuant to the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019, SO 2019 c. 7, Sch 17, s. 8(1). While Ms. Compagnone was not personally a defendant in the 2015 action, she is a privy of the Crown. The plaintiff submits Ms. Campagnone was not referred to in the earlier action and could therefore not be privy to the first action since she had no interest in it. I disagree. The plaintiff conflates interest and the timing of the involvement of Ms. Compagnone as distinguishing features that support of her not being in privy with the Crown.
[46] I find the facts of the dispute and its essential character in this case are all workplace-related, derived from the employment relationship and necessarily engage and arise from the collective agreement.
[47] While I agree with the plaintiff’s contention that certain facts common to both actions may not be determinative, I find the causes of action in these actions are not separate and distinct. The plaintiff ‘s submission that cause of action estoppel did not arise unless the same cause of action “has been determined” in an earlier proceeding by a court of competent jurisdiction, implies a broader basis or precondition that was not addressed by Justice Rady’s decision. This is an erroneous understanding on the part of the plaintiff. Justice Rady determined that the court had no jurisdiction.
[48] Mr. Speck also alleges conspiracy and misfeasance in public office in this action. These are the same torts alleged in the 2015 action. Furthermore, this allegation is necessarily with respect to the termination of his employment with the Crown in both actions. The basis for the claims in tort remain the same; his employment was alleged to have been wrongfully terminated and that the Crown, through its employees, acted maliciously to harm him.
[49] As Justice Rady found, the issue of whether the termination of the plaintiff’s employment was justified falls outside the jurisdiction of this court. It is essentially the wrongfulness of his termination the plaintiff wants this court to adjudicate upon. I find that in this action this court is also likewise without jurisdiction for substantially the same reasons Justice Rady outlined. See also Weber v. Ontario Hydro, 1995 Can LII 108. The plaintiff’s submission that Weber “pertains only to mandatory arbitration clauses…and is applicable only in limited circumstances…” is an erroneous understanding and application of that decision.
[50] All of the criteria have been met for res judicata to apply in this case: see Hurontario Travel Centre v. Brennan, 2013 ONSC 2761 and 2014 ONCA 405 for similarly based factual circumstances.
[51] In view of these findings, it is not necessary to undertake a further analysis as to whether the action should be dismissed as an impermissible collateral attack and constitutes and abuse of process. Even though Mr. Speck widened the scope of the allegations in this action, I find that this action is another attempt to challenge the termination of his employment in an effort to secure a finding that he was wrongfully terminated.
[52] I also observe and find that the plaintiff’s allegation of conspiracy and collusion as between the Crown and AMAPECO was central to his complaint concerning the alleged failure by the union to fulfill its duty of fair representation before the OLRB. The OLRB dismissed his complaint for reasons contained in Vice-Chair Rowan’s Endorsement dated January 25, 2019. See Todd Elliott Speck v Association of Management, 2019 CanLII 6325.
[53] In conclusion, for these reasons the claim against the Crown and Ms. Compagnone in this action must be dismissed.
Action against AMAPCEO and AMAPCEO defendants
[54] Mr. Speck in this action against the AMAPCEO defendants claims conspiracy to injure and unlawful means conspiracy. All allegations relate to the performance of their duties in relation to the collective agreement between AMAPCEO and the Crown.
[55] Elisa Mesiti is named by the plaintiff as the “Dispute Resolution Officer with AMAPCEO who was assigned to all matters involving the Kingston-based employees of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, including the plaintiff”. Rob Smalley is named as Elisa Mesiti’s superior. The plaintiff named the defendant Dave Bulmer (President), Cynthia Watt (Vice-President) and Glynn Robinson (Secretary) on the basis that they were members of the executive committee at AMAPCEO which made the decisions at the time to withdraw the plaintiff’s grievances.
[56] The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Mesiti and Smalley,
a. conspired with the other defendants to injure the plaintiff and ensure that his rights would not be protected in the only forum (arbitration) that the law provides for his contractual rights to be defended and his tort claims against management to be brought;
b. agreed to a settlement in which the defendants left allegations levied against the plaintiff as a live issue (never retracted or adjudicated)
c. suspended the arbitration and then withdrew the grievances even though all of the defendants knew that the Crown could not, in law, succeed at arbitration;
d. conspired to delay sending the plaintiffs grievance of that suspension to arbitration;
e. wrote to AMAPCEO executive committee to advise that they would recommend that the plaintiff’s grievances be withdrawn;
f. together with the Goldblatt defendants, agree to plan where by the defendants would make every effort to ensure that the Crown would never have to prove its case at arbitration and the plaintiff would be forced to settle for a monetary settlement and relieve the employer from having to call any direct witnesses to any alleged misconduct by canceling all remaining arbitration dates in the November to December 2015 period and entering into settlement discussions;
g. together with the Goldblatt defendants and Ms. Campagnone, collaborated to ensure that the plaintiff would be denied forum in which to have his rights defended and his tort claims against senior managers heard and the Crown's termination of the plaintiff’s employment, would not be overturned in arbitration, brought maximum pressure on the plaintiff to settle for a monetary settlement in lieu of reinstatement, brought maximum financial and psychological pressure on the plaintiff to settle, relieved the employer from the burden of having to defend the illegal suspension at arbitration and allowed the employer to read an improper report into the record, also agreed to a settlement involving the termination of the plaintiff's employment and appropriately three years salary but without the employer withdrawing its allegation against the plaintiff.
[57] The plaintiff also alleges against AMAPCEO’s the executive committee that it was improper for it to withdraw the grievances. He also claims that the consequences of his termination were serious and far-reaching and included termination from the public service, difficulty becoming a licensed lawyer, suffered adverse publicity from the arbitration decision, lost wages and lost his right to challenge his termination in the appropriate forum.
[58] The plaintiff submitted that the claims of lack of jurisdiction to this court by these defendants were without merit and that only this court had jurisdiction over both the subject matter of this dispute and the parties to the action. I am mindful of the plaintiff’s written and oral submissions in relation to these defendants are similar to those referred to earlier regarding the Crown.
[59] Mr. Speck submits there should be a civil proceeding that is determined on the merits and that there has never been a determination by any other court or forum of any of the material facts in relation to the cause of action. He also submits these defendant’s have no immunity from suit in this regard.
[60] I find the plaintiff essentially repeats the allegations that he has made against the employer, the union and its lawyers since at least 2013.
[61] Section 7(3) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993 provides for exclusive jurisdiction and, accordingly, workplace grievances must go to arbitration before the Grievance Settlement Board. This is what the plaintiff did some years ago. See again Weber v. Ontario Hydro, supra, Vernon v. General Motors of Canada, 2005 CanLII 3323 and Stewart v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2020 ONSC 5687.
[62] It is also long and well-established that DFR complaints squarely fall within the labour relations regime. See Gendron v. Supply and Services Union of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Local 50057, 1990 CanLII 110 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 1298 and Kutsenko v. Ontario (Management Board of Cabinet), 2011 ONSC 3239.
[63] For these reasons, I find this action is outside of this court’s jurisdiction in relation to these defendants. Rule 21.03 is otherwise engaged and applies in this respect.
[64] In view of the above findings, it is unnecessary to proceed to determine whether the action is frivolous, vexatious, or is otherwise an abuse of process.
Action against the Goldblatt defendants
[65] Some additional factual background with respect to the Goldblatt defendants is necessary.
[66] The defendants Goldblatt Partners LLP, Kelly Doctor and Marissa Pollock all represented AMAPCEO in labour disputes with the Ontario Public Service. The firm was retained by AMAPCEO to represent the union in connection with the grievances involving the plaintiff.
[67] The grievances over the plaintiff's termination were brought by the union on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had no standing in the matter, except through the union.
[68] The grievances were filed on behalf of the plaintiff following his suspension in February of 2013 and his termination in February of 2014.
[69] There were four separate but related disputes that were before the Grievance Settlement Board:
a. a dispute filed January 14, 2013 involving a letter of reprimand dated December 17, 2012;
b. an administrative suspension dispute that was filed on March 18, 2013;
c. a dispute filed in July 2013 for a performance rating of “unsatisfactory” in July 2013, and
d. a termination dispute filed March 5, 2014 challenging the basis of termination for the plaintiff's refusal to accept responsibility for his actions and continued assistance that he was the victim of conspiracy.
[70] These defendants negotiated a monetary settlement of the grievances in May of 2016 involving approximately three years salary to the plaintiff. The plaintiff rejected the proposal and sued the employer instead. These defendants were not involved in that lawsuit which the plaintiff pursued on his own. That lawsuit was ultimately dismissed by the court as outlined earlier in these reasons.
[71] The plaintiff brought an unfair labour practice complaint against AMAPCEO on January 31, 2017 which was dismissed for lack of standing. He also commenced a DFR complaint against AMAPCEO to the OLRB on August 7, 2018 which was dismissed for failure to provide any reasonable explanation for having failed to bring the application in a timely manner despite knowing that the cause of action arose in early as 2014.
[72] The plaintiff also brought two human rights complaints to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario against a number of parties including AMAPCEO and the Goldblatt defendants. The first complaint was filed on April 5, 2018. This complaint was dismissed by decision dated February 11, 2019 since Mr. Speck failed to attend a summary/preliminary hearing. The subsequent complaint against the Goldblatt defendants was filed on April 5, 2018 and was dismissed by decision dated August 24, 2018.
[73] This action was commenced by a Notice of Application issued on May 8, 2019. The plaintiff’s allegations against the defendants are as follows:
a. conspiracy to injure the plaintiff;
b. unlawful means conspiracy against the plaintiff;
c. the tort of negligence against the plaintiff; and
d. breach of fiduciary duty against the plaintiff.
[74] There is no evidence that the Goldblatt defendants represented the plaintiff regarding any of the above matters or any other matters. At no time did these defendants advise the plaintiff that they would represent him. These defendants, rather, always represented AMAPCEO. I find that these defendants did not owe the plaintiff any duty of care or any fiduciary duty on the evidence before this court.
[75] I also find that the plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence to show that these defendants otherwise owed him any duty of care or fiduciary duty. The pleadings simply are insufficient in this regard.
[76] In addition, I find the plaintiff’s claims are statute-barred.
[77] In this case, in an email dated November 4, 2013, the plaintiff wrote to a number of individuals including the defendant union and advised that he was pursuing claims for conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and defamatory libel through the arbitration process. Further, in an email dated April 28, 2016, the plaintiff wrote to a number of individuals, including these defendants, and took issue with the defendants’ conduct during prior proceedings. He also made allegations against the employer for conspiracy to commit unfair labour practices in order to deny him a proper resolution of the matter in a timely fashion.
[78] In this case, the plaintiff commenced an action by notice of action on May 8, 2019 which was more that two years after April 18, 2016. I find the plaintiff has not offered any explanation for the delay in filing the notice of action outside of the two-year limitation period
[79] As a result, this court finds this action is statute-barred as against these defendants. The applicable two-year limitation period from the date of discovery from when the plaintiff had knowledge or ought to have had knowledge of the matters had expired before this action was issued. The plaintiff otherwise has the evidentiary burden to prove material facts giving rise to the cause of action were not within his knowledge within two years from the date he issued the statement of claim. He has not done so.
[80] It is not necessary to determine the application of res judicata involving these defendants. In view of these findings, it is unnecessary for me to go on to determine whether or not this action is frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abusive process.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
[81] In summary, the action of the plaintiff against each of the defendants is dismissed.
[82] As to the issue of costs, if these cannot be resolved between the plaintiffs and the defendants’ counsel within twenty-one days of the date of this decision and if the defendants desire to seek costs, the defendants must serve upon the plaintiff and file written submissions to the court within thirty days and the plaintiff may serve on the defendants and file written submissions to the court within forty-five days of the date of this decision. Written submissions for all parties shall be limited to four pages excluding bills of costs, statutory provisions and case law.
Justice M. D. McArthur
Released: May 21, 2021
COURT FILE NO.: CV 937/19
DATE: 20210521
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
TODD SPECK
Plaintiff
– and –
GOLDBLATT PARTNERS LLP, MARISSA POLLOCK, KELLY DOCTOR, ELISA MESITI, ROBERT SMALLEY, DAVE BULMER, CYNTHIA WATT, GLYNN ROBINSON, LISA COMPAGNONE and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO
Defendants
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
McArthur J.
Released: May 21, 2021