Simone Ostrowski

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without cause after nine months of employment.

The plaintiff argued the termination clause in his employment agreement was unenforceable because it violated the Employment Standards Act.

The court found the termination clause enforceable, as it clearly limited the employer's obligations to the minimum statutory entitlements under the ESA.

The plaintiff's claim for common law damages was dismissed.

The court also assessed the hypothetical common law notice period at four months and determined the plaintiff would have been entitled to unvested Restricted Stock Units had the termination clause been unenforceable.

Farah Rahman appealed a summary judgment dismissing her wrongful dismissal action.

The motion judge had found her employment contracts' termination provisions valid under the ESA and that only one entity, CDAI, was her employer.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the "just cause" termination provision in the employment contract violated the ESA by allowing termination without notice for conduct less than "wilful misconduct" rendering all termination provisions void.

The Court also found that the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors in determining the employer, concluding that the corporate respondents were common employers due to their high level of integration and control over Ms. Rahman.

The case was remitted to the Superior Court for damages quantification.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action, arguing that the termination provisions in her employment agreement violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) and were therefore void.

The court found that the plaintiff, a sophisticated employee who received independent legal advice, entered into an agreement that explicitly incorporated ESA minimums and provided greater benefits in certain circumstances.

The court held that the 'just cause' provision did not contravene the ESA and dismissed the action against the parent and affiliate companies, finding no joint employer relationship.

The termination provisions were upheld as valid.

This endorsement addresses costs following a wrongful dismissal trial where the plaintiff, Melvin Yee, was largely successful in his claim for damages but unsuccessful in his claim for bad faith damages.

The defendant, Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC), failed to disclose a critical employment contract until late in the proceedings, causing unnecessary litigation.

The court found HBC's conduct "worthy of sanction" under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Despite the plaintiff's divided success and the defendant's offers to settle, the court awarded the plaintiff reduced substantial indemnity costs, emphasizing that the defendant's conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding.

The plaintiff, a 62-year-old former Director of Product Design and Development with 11.65 years of service, sued for wrongful dismissal after his employment was terminated.

The court applied the Bardal factors and awarded a 16-month reasonable notice period, including base salary, unpaid bonus, benefits, and pension contributions.

The plaintiff's claim for bad faith damages, based on the employer's late disclosure of a superseding employment contract, was dismissed as the conduct did not meet the required threshold.

The plaintiff, Hugo Raposo, brought a motion for summary judgment in his wrongful dismissal action against the defendant, CA Canada Company.

The central issue was the enforceability of the termination provisions in the employment agreement and whether they displaced the common law presumption of reasonable notice.

The court found that the termination provisions in the offer letter and employment agreement were neither contradictory nor ambiguous, and effectively rebutted the presumption of common law reasonable notice.

Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, though the plaintiff was awarded outstanding vacation pay.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding damages for wrongful termination of a promotional contract.

The trial judge found that the contract required the respondent to promote the appellant's product, not serve as a brand ambassador, and that the morals clause was not violated by the private transmission of nude photographs within an intimate relationship, particularly where the act occurred before the contract was executed.

The trial judge awarded $162,500 in damages representing outstanding periodic payments over the four-year contract term.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for an interim injunction against a former employee, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought elevated costs on a substantial or full indemnity basis, arguing the application was meritless and intended to intimidate.

The court found the application was not frivolous and counsel conduct was not inappropriate.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $12,500 all inclusive.

The applicant daycare facility sought an interim injunction to restrain a former employee from soliciting its clients and employees, alleging breach of a non-solicitation clause.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm.

The loss of one employee and two clients was either compensable in damages or not clearly linked to solicitation, and there was no evidence of ongoing solicitation.

The application for an interim injunction was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to strike several paragraphs from an affidavit filed by the respondent in an underlying application for unpaid wages.

The impugned paragraphs alleged that the applicant was terminated for cause due to sexual harassment and insubordination.

The court found that because the underlying application sought only unpaid wages earned prior to termination and not damages for wrongful dismissal, the allegations regarding cause for termination were clearly irrelevant and scandalous.

The court granted the motion and struck the paragraphs pursuant to Rules 25.11, 38.12, and 39.01(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.