CITATION: Contardi v. Grand Cheese, 2026 ONSC 4045
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Joseph Contardi
Plaintiff
– and –
Grande Cheese Company Limited, 932423 Ontario Limited, Gino Contardi, Eric Albert Contardi, and Leonardo Contardi aka Lennie Contardi
Defendants
Ted Flett, Daniel Hassel, for the Plaintiff
Not represented
HEARD: In Writing
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MATHEN J.
OVERVIEW
1The plaintiff Joseph Contardi seeks default judgment for: a declaration that he was constructively dismissed from his employment with the Defendants; and damages of $570,000. Those damages include:
a. $360,000 for wrongful dismissal;
b. $20,000 for unpaid wages, benefits and perquisites accrued prior to the constructive termination;
c. $100,000 for aggravated damages;
d. $20,000 for defamation and/or negligence;
e. $20,000 as damages for the tort of intentional infliction of mental distress;
f. $30,000 as general damages for injury to dignity, pursuant to the Human Rights Code; and
g. pre and post judgment interest in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c.C.43.
2The main causes of action alleged are constructive dismissal, wrongful dismissal and breach of contract.
3The plaintiff served the statement of claim on December 23, 2025. The corporate defendants, Grand Cheese Company Ltd and 932423 Ontario Limited, failed to defend the proceeding and were noted in default on February 6, 2026.
4On March 18, 2026, Papageorgiou J. ordered the Plaintiff to serve the motion for default judgment and a copy of his endorsement allowing the Defendants an opportunity to notify the Plaintiff by April 27, 2026 that they would respond, failing which the motion would proceed in writing.
5On March 30, 2026, the Plaintiff served the endorsement and motion record on the corporate defendants. The Defendants did not respond. The Plaintiff served the Defendants with its factum on April 27, 2026. I am therefore satisfied that this matter may proceed on a default basis, in writing.
Decision
6For the reasons that follow, I am granting judgment in part. A declaration shall issue. The Defendants owe the Plaintiff $373.207.83, costs and pre and post judgment interest.
The Issues
7The main issues are:
Issue 1: Do the materials provide a basis for a finding of liability?
Issue 2: If so, what are the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled?
ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Do the materials provide a basis for a finding of liability?
Consequences of noting in default
8Pursuant to r. 19.02, having not defended the proceeding, a defendant is deemed to admit the truth of all allegations of fact made in the Statement of Claim.
9However, pursuant to r. 19.06, a plaintiff is not entitled to judgment on a motion for judgment or at a trial merely because the facts alleged in the statement of claim are deemed to be admitted, unless the facts entitle the plaintiff to judgment.
10In particular, r. 19.05 provides that a motion for judgment which involves unliquidated damages shall be supported by evidence given by affidavit.
The test
11The test on a motion for default judgement is:
a. What deemed admissions of fact flow from the facts pleaded in the Statement of Claim?
b. Do those deemed admissions of fact entitle the plaintiff, as a matter of law, to judgement on the claim?
c. If they do not, has the plaintiff adduced admissible evidence which, when combined with the deemed admissions, entitle it to judgement on the pleaded claim?
Elekta Ltd. v. Rodkin, 2012 ONSC 2062 at para. 14.
Application
12I am satisfied that the plaintiff has established liability based upon the following deemed admissions from the Statement of Claim, together with the evidence from the affidavit of Elaine Reynolds sworn March 26, 2026, the affidavit of Joseph Contardi sworn April 27, 2026, and arguments in the plaintiff’s factum:
a) para 5: The Corporate Defendants were the (i) common employers of the Plaintiff for the purposes of the common law (ii) associated and related employers for the purposes of the ESA;
b) para 22: On or about February 26, 1990, the Plaintiff commenced employment with Grande Cheese.
c) paras 23-24: From 2004 or thereabouts onwards, the Plaintiff held the role of Vice President of Retail and Wholesales with Grande, one of the senior-most executive positions of the company.
d) para 25: The Plaintiff earned a base salary and other forms of compensation, including benefits, vacation pay, and car allowance, as well as various car, grocery and phone bill payments.
e) para 29: The Plaintiff was subjected to unilateral manoeuvres by the Defendants designed to force him to quit.
f) paras 38 and 44: The Plaintiff was barred from attending at Grande’s head office and his remote access to work was discontinued.
g) para 38: The Plaintiff and his brother were told by imposing individuals adorned with “security” sweaters to “hurry up” collect their things and “get out” of the Grande head-office premises;
h) paras 55, 59 and 66: Grande failed to pay the Plaintiff his wages and terminated his benefits coverage;
i) para 71: The Plaintiff was not provided with any notice of the termination of his employment and was not dismissed for just cause.
j) para 84: The Plaintiff was not paid his statutory termination pay and not paid his statutory severance pay in accordance with the ESA; and
k) paras 2, 16: At the time of his constructive dismissal, the Plaintiff was forty-nine (49) years old and had been employed by Grande for approximately thirty-five (35) years.
l) It is deemed to be admitted that the Corporate Defendants are associated and related companies for the purposes of the ESA. Section 4 of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 provides that if associated or related activities or businesses are or were carried on by or through an employer and another person, the employer and the other person shall all be treated as one employer, jointly and severally liable, for the purposes of the ESA. The Corporate Defendants carried on business as associated and related companies. Accordingly, the Corporate Defendants are to be treated as one employer, jointly and severally liable, for the purposes of the ESA. (ER Aff. Para. 5)
m) It is further deemed to be admitted that the Corporate Defendants were the Plaintiff’s common employers. To determine a common-employer relationship, the question is whether there was an intention that both of the Corporate Defendants were a party to the employment agreement – not only Grande Cheese Company Limited, but also 932423 Ontario Limited. The Plaintiff submits that there was such intention and the Corporate Defendants are jointly and severally liable: Downtown Eatery (1993) Ltd v Ontario, 2001 CanLII 8538 (ON CA), leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2001] SCCA No 397 at paras 30–32; Rahman v Cannon Design Architecture Inc, 2022 ONCA 451 at 41.
n) It is further deemed to be admitted that the plaintiff was constructively dismissed. The Defendants imposed unilateral changes to the fundamental terms of the plaintiff’s employment, including removal of his access to his physical office and removal of his duties (ER Aff. Para. 5) (JC Aff).
o) It is admitted that the plaintiff made diligent efforts to secure new, comparable employment (ER Aff para 113) (JC Aff at paras. 28-29).
Issue 2: What are the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled?
13A wrongfully dismissed employee is entitled to compensation for all losses arising from the employer’s failure to give proper notice of termination. Damages for wrongful dismissal should place the employee in the same position they would have been in had the employer not failed to provide proper notice. That includes damages for the employment benefits the employee would have received as part of their employment compensation: Paquette v TeraGo Networks Inc, 2016 ONCA 618 at para 16.
Applicant
14The case at bar warrants a significant notice period of twenty-seven (27) months given the following circumstances which are deemed to be admitted:
a. The plaintiff’s thirty-five year tenure;
b. The corporate defendants constructive dismissal of the plaintiff’s employment without providing him with his minimum statutory entitlements;
c. The fact that Grande Cheese was a family-owned and -operated business to which the plaintiff dedicated his entire working life, involving a highly-specialized skill set;
d. The executive and highly autonomous nature of the plaintiff’s role;
e. The plaintiff’s broad compensation which is not comparable to the current job market;
f. The defendants’ communicatation that an investigation of the plaintiff was underway, creating a cloud of suspicion around the plaintiff; and
g. The abrupt manner of the plaintiff’s dismissal.
15I am satisfied with the plaintiff’s calculations of his damages contained in the chart at paragraph 34 of his factum which is supported by exhibits to the two affidavits mentioned earlier.
16The plaintiff claims additional damages of:
a. $100,000 for aggravated damages, punitive damages, damages for mental distress and/or breach of duty of honest performance of contractual obligations;
b. $20,000 as general damages for defamation and/or negligence;
c. $20,000 as damages for the tort of assault;
d. $20,000 as damages for the intentional infliction of mental distress;
e. $30,000 as general damages for injury to dignity pursuant to the Human Rights Code;
f. Special damages in an amount to be determined.
17The plaintiff describes being accosted by individuals at the defendants’ offices on January 30, 2025. Those individuals were purported security personnel who the plaintiff believes were instructed to break into his office with a crowbar. When the plaintiff tried to enter his office, those individuals impeded him. One of them was still wielding the crowbar. The plaintiff deposes that he thought he was “imminent danger”.
18While I have no doubt that the above incident was unsettling, I am not persuaded that it constitutes the tort of assault. The plaintiff was directed to remove his things from his office. The plaintiff does not describe an explicit or implied threat to his person. The plaintiff states that individuals were instructed to obtain access to his office and used a crowbar for that purpose. Therefore, I find the presence of the crowbar is not probative to whether the tort of assault occurred. I do not find the direction to the plaintiff to remove his things from the office, even if it was made harshly, is sufficient in law to have created in the plaintiff an apprehension of a risk of harm.
19I am not persuaded that the defendants’ conduct rises to the level at which punitive, aggravated or special damages is warranted.
20Given that the plaintiff has not explained how he suffered a human rights violation, I am not persuaded that the plaintiff suffered an injury to dignity compensable under the Human Rights Code.
21The plaintiff has not explained how the distress he experienced rises to the level required to make out the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
22The plaintiff’s factum does not explain how the defendants’ purported statements to third parties constitute defamation. The plaintiff cites no defamation caselaw.
23Accordingly, I decline to award the additional damages sought.
COSTS
24The plaintiff requests costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis.
25I find that costs are owed on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $29,507.32. I find that those costs are fair and reasonable, and were within the reasonable contemplation of the defendant.
ORDER
26In conclusion, I make the following order:
a. The Plaintiff, Joseph Contardi, was constructively dismissed from his employment with Grande Cheese Company Limited and 932423 Ontario Limited (collectively, “The Defendants”);
b. The Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiff:
i. twenty-seven (27) months’ damages in lieu of reasonable notice in the amount of $373,207.83;
ii. pre-judgment interest pursuant to section 128 of the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43, as amended, at the rate of four (4) percent from February 17, 2025 to the date of judgment;
iii. post-judgment interest pursuant section 129 of to the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43, as amended at the applicable rate depending on the date of judgment;
iv. costs of this action fixed at $29,413.44.
c. Within 14 days, the Plaintiff may calculate the amount of pre-judgment interest owed and submit for my signature an Order consistent with the above provisions.
Mathen J.
Released: July 13, 2026
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Joseph Contardi
Plaintiff
– and –
Grande Cheese Company Limited, 932423 Ontario Limited, Gino Contardi, Eric Albert Contardi, and Leonardo Contardi aka Lennie Contardi
Defendants
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Mathen, J.
Released: July 13, 2026