Employment and Labour Law - SCJ

The plaintiff, a 61-year-old finance manager with nine months of service, was terminated without cause.

He brought a motion for summary judgment to determine the appropriate period of reasonable notice.

The court applied the Bardal factors, noting the plaintiff's short service, performance-based compensation, and the robust job market prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court held that the pandemic, being a subsequent event, should not impact the notice period calculation and awarded two months' reasonable notice.

The plaintiff, a 61-year-old commission salesperson with 19.5 months of service, was terminated without cause shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic.

He brought a motion seeking 10 months of reasonable notice, while the defendant employer argued for two months.

The court assessed the relevant factors, noting the plaintiff's short tenure, non-managerial role, and the lack of evidence that his age or the pandemic significantly hindered his job search during the applicable notice period.

The court awarded a reasonable notice period of 2.5 months.

The plaintiff sought approval of a $22.25 million settlement in a class action alleging unpaid overtime by the defendant trucking company.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable given the significant risks of proving systemic liability and the range of damages calculated by experts.

The court also approved a $10,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff and class counsel's 30% contingency fee, noting that while third-party funding arrangements must now be considered in assessing legal fees under the amended Class Proceedings Act, it would not retroactively adjust fees in this case.

The plaintiff, an internet marketing company, brought an urgent motion for an interim injunction, a Mareva injunction, and a Certificate of Pending Litigation against two former employees and a related corporation.

The plaintiff alleged the former employees breached non-competition and non-solicitation clauses by operating a competing business and misappropriating confidential information.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case or irreparable harm, as the evidence connecting the defendants to the competing business was largely circumstantial and speculative.

The requests for asset-freezing relief and a Certificate of Pending Litigation were also dismissed due to insufficient evidence of asset dissipation or illicit funding.

The plaintiff employee brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action under the Simplified Procedure.

The defendant employer alleged just cause for termination based on performance and behavioural issues.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding cause, as the employer failed to provide sufficient evidence of misconduct warranting summary dismissal, and set the reasonable notice period at 14 months.

However, because the Simplified Procedure prevented cross-examination on affidavits, the court found a genuine issue regarding mitigation of damages and the value of lost benefits, ordering a minitrial to resolve those specific issues.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to amend her Statement of Claim, add new party defendants, compel further documentary production, and compel additional examinations for discovery in her wrongful dismissal action.

The court found the proposed 85-page amended pleading to be replete with evidence, irrelevant arguments, and inflammatory attacks, violating the rules of pleading.

The motion was dismissed in its entirety as frivolous, scandalous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The parties were ordered to proceed to mediation and then examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff, a 47-year-old Director of Marketing and Communication, sued for wrongful dismissal after his employment was terminated without cause after nearly three years of service.

The court found the termination clause in his employment agreement void under the Employment Standards Act.

Considering the Bardal factors and the negative impact of the global pandemic on the plaintiff's ability to secure alternate employment, the court awarded 10 months' reasonable notice.

Claims for bad faith damages regarding a damaged USB stick were dismissed, and the court found no failure to mitigate.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for long-term disability benefits on the basis that the plaintiff failed to submit a formal application for benefits.

The court found that the failure to submit a formal claim amounted to imperfect compliance rather than non-compliance, as the defendant had already adjudicated and denied the plaintiff's short-term disability claim and had notice of the long-term disability claim via a completed physician questionnaire.

The court granted the plaintiff relief from forfeiture, finding that the defendant suffered no substantial prejudice, and dismissed the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion for an interlocutory compliance order and restraining orders against a unit owner and its principals/agents.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants engaged in a multi-year pattern of threatening, abusive, and harassing behaviour towards the board of directors, property management, and other unit owners, including threats of litigation and physical intimidation.

The court found that the defendants' conduct violated section 117 of the Condominium Act, constituted workplace harassment under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and was oppressive under section 135 of the Condominium Act.

The court granted interlocutory orders restraining the defendants from further harassment and from soliciting proxies.

The plaintiffs, a group of unionized and non-unionized hospital employees, sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant employer from enforcing a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy that threatened termination of employment.

The court dissolved a previously granted interim injunction.

For the unionized employees, the court held that the essential character of the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labour arbitration process under the collective agreements, and declined to exercise its residual jurisdiction to grant interim relief where the unions had carriage of the grievances and had not sought such relief.

For the non-unionized employees, the court found no irreparable harm, as monetary damages would be an adequate remedy if their employment was wrongfully terminated.

Following a default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action where the plaintiff was awarded damages for salary in lieu of notice, the court addressed the remaining claims for vacation pay and costs.

The plaintiff abandoned the claim for loss of benefits.

The court awarded $464.56 for vacation pay over the statutory notice period and fixed costs at $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff former employer brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant former employee from working for a competitor and from using confidential information.

The defendant had previously downloaded files before resigning but had returned them pursuant to an earlier interim order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the defendant had conveyed confidential information to his new employer or that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm.

The court also noted the new employer was not a direct competitor in the same market.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action against Uber sought court approval of a third-party litigation funding agreement with Augusta.

The proposed class action alleges that Uber breached employment contracts and the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The court reviewed the four-factor test for approving third-party funding agreements, noting that the agreement was necessary for access to justice, fair and reasonable, and did not overcompensate the funder.

The court approved the litigation funding agreement.

The plaintiff commenced an action and brought a motion for an interim injunction to prevent the defendant from imposing a trusteeship on a local union.

The plaintiff subsequently abandoned the motion and the litigation after the trusteeship was imposed and she joined a rival union.

The defendant sought costs of the abandoned motion pursuant to Rule 37.09(3).

The court found no good reason to depart from the general rule that a responding party is entitled to costs of an abandoned motion, and awarded the defendant $30,000 in costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against her former employer, claiming wrongful dismissal and breach of her employment contract.

The core issue was whether her contract automatically renewed for an additional year because the employer failed to provide a 30-day notice of non-renewal prior to the end of the initial three-year term.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, interpreting the contract to mean it had automatically renewed.

The court awarded the plaintiff her base salary and performance bonus for the remainder of the initial term plus the one-year renewal period, but denied her claims for health insurance stipends and office expenses.

The plaintiff, an insurance broker, brought an action for wrongful and constructive dismissal against his former employer.

The defendant employer argued that the plaintiff had voluntarily retired and was an independent contractor.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence to be less credible than the defendant's and a third-party witness, concluding that the plaintiff had indeed voluntarily retired as he had previously announced.

The court also determined that the plaintiff was an employee, not an independent contractor, but dismissed the action entirely based on the finding of voluntary retirement.

The plaintiffs, a commercial real estate broker and his company, brought an action against the defendant brokerage firm seeking a declaration that their independent contractor agreement was terminated without cause, thereby forgiving a $225,000 loan.

The defendant counterclaimed for repayment of the loan, alleging the plaintiff terminated the agreement or was terminated for default.

The court rectified the agreement to include a mistakenly omitted provision regarding the plaintiff's leadership role and analyzed the interpretation of the plaintiff's role as the Ottawa Practice Lead for investments, finding that no strict $10 million ceiling was placed on the plaintiff's transactions.

The plaintiff, a dental office employee of 7.5 years, sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without notice.

The defendant dentists alleged just cause, claiming the plaintiff falsified work hours and manipulated surveillance cameras.

The court found no reliable evidence of fraud or dishonesty, concluding the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed.

The court awarded 8 months' pay in lieu of notice but declined to award aggravated or punitive damages, finding the employer's conduct during termination was not unduly insensitive or in bad faith.

The plaintiff, a former probationary employee of the defendant, sued for negligence and breach of a duty of good faith after the defendant failed to fully complete a verification of experience form required for the plaintiff to obtain a nursing license in the Northwest Territories.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the employment contract had been terminated during the probationary period and there was no recognized duty of care requiring a former employer to provide a reference or complete such forms.

The statement of claim was struck with leave to amend.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside ex parte Anton Piller and Mareva orders obtained by the plaintiff employer in an action for fraud.

The plaintiff alleged that its former employee and his wife used a shell company to secretly mark up the prices of electronic components purchased from Chinese suppliers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had made full and fair disclosure of material facts when obtaining the orders.

The court also held that the evidence justified the continuation of both orders, as there was a strong prima facie case of fraud, a risk of destruction of evidence, and a risk of dissipation of assets.