Siobhan M. O’Brien

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 25.11 to strike the plaintiff's Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim in its entirety, or alternatively, to strike specific paragraphs.

The plaintiff, a former union president, claimed constructive dismissal, breach of contract, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and defamation following a prolonged conflict with the defendants.

The court declined to strike the claim as a whole, finding it provided a logical presentation of the conflict and could be responded to.

However, the court struck several specific paragraphs that contained evidence, irrelevant historical facts, or immaterial references to non-parties, granting the plaintiff leave to amend.

Following a wrongful dismissal trial in which the plaintiff obtained damages for six months’ reasonable notice, the court addressed the appropriate costs award.

The defendant argued that costs should be limited or denied because the recovery was within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court under Rule 57.05(1).

The court held that the total recovery exceeded the Small Claims Court limit and that, in any event, denial of costs is discretionary.

Considering the plaintiff’s success, the defendant’s failure to serve any offer to settle, and litigation conduct including late concessions on pension vesting, the court exercised its discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to award costs to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff moved to reopen a prior decision that had set aside an Anton Piller Order obtained against a former employee who joined a competitor, seeking to introduce fresh evidence allegedly showing the defendant and a third‑party competitor misled the court about future competition and misuse of confidential information.

The court applied the test for admission of fresh evidence, requiring proof that the evidence could not have been obtained earlier with reasonable diligence and that it would probably have changed the result.

The alleged new material largely concerned post‑hearing developments, including lobbying activities, industry publications, and a later government refit contract, which at most demonstrated potential future competition.

The court held that such evidence was irrelevant to the purpose of an Anton Piller Order, which is limited to preserving evidence of past wrongdoing.

The moving party therefore failed to show the evidence would have altered the earlier decision or remedied the prior failure to provide full and frank disclosure.

In additional reasons following a wrongful dismissal judgment, the court determined the appropriate rate for prejudgment interest on damages awarded for reasonable notice and pension losses.

The parties agreed on the quantum of damages and the method of calculating interest but disputed the applicable interest rate under the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiff argued for a higher rate corresponding to the quarter when the cause of action arose, while the defendant argued the statutory rate applicable when the claim was issued should apply.

Exercising discretion under s. 130 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court held that applying an averaged interest rate over the relevant period better reflected fairness in the circumstances.

Prejudgment interest was therefore calculated using an average rate of 1.11%.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action following termination without cause after approximately 16 years of service in a specialized technical role.

The court determined that the reasonable notice period and mitigation issues could be resolved on the summary judgment record, while claims for aggravated, punitive, and certain special damages required viva voce evidence at a summary trial.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court found a 16‑month reasonable notice period appropriate given the employee’s age, long service, specialized duties, and limited re‑employment prospects.

The employer failed to establish a failure to mitigate.

Judgment was granted for damages for lack of reasonable notice, with remaining issues reserved for a summary trial.

Following a wrongful dismissal trial, the court had previously determined that six months constituted reasonable notice.

Because the evidentiary record lacked detailed calculations at trial, the court directed counsel to provide calculations for damages including pay in lieu of notice, severance pay, mitigation income, pension losses during the notice period, and pre- and post‑judgment interest.

Counsel failed to provide the calculations by the original deadline.

The court ordered the parties to deliver written submissions addressing the damages calculations within specified timelines and page limits, with reference to relevant case law if necessary.

The plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal action seeking nine months’ reasonable notice following termination from a senior management role with a federally regulated employer.

The employer argued that statutory minimum notice under the Canada Labour Code was sufficient because the employee’s continuous service was only approximately 2.5 years.

The court applied the Bardal factors and found ambiguity in the employment agreement regarding recognition of prior service with predecessor employers.

The court credited the employee with partial recognition of prior service, treated him as a long‑term employee for notice purposes, and found he had reasonably mitigated his losses by securing alternate employment within three months.

A reasonable notice period of six months was awarded.