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.

The respondent hospital brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking particulars of the grounds of discrimination relied upon by the applicant in his human rights application.

The Tribunal found that no order was necessary because the applicant had already responded to the request by indicating he was relying on the grounds of disability, threat of reprisal, and reprisal, and alleging a failure to accommodate and threats of termination related to sick time.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance proceeding dealing with similar allegations.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as it avoids concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee six months' reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal and $23,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The employer argued the trial judge erred by considering the employee's prior service, finding he mitigated his damages by accepting a lower-paying role, and awarding Superior Court costs for a judgment under $25,000.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the six-month notice period was reasonable given the circumstances, the employee properly mitigated his damages, and the costs award was an appropriate exercise of discretion despite the trial judge's error in including prejudgment interest to meet the Small Claims Court threshold.

The appellant employer appealed a partial summary judgment awarding the respondent employee 16 months' notice for wrongful dismissal.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by applying a 'rule of thumb' of one month per year of service and by finding the respondent made reasonable efforts to mitigate his damages despite applying for only four positions in ten months.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge properly applied the Bardal factors to determine the notice period and correctly concluded the respondent's mitigation efforts were reasonable given his specialized role as a radiation safety officer.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The court ordered the appellant to pay the respondent costs in the amount of $10,000, inclusive of applicable taxes and disbursements.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment order awarding damages for wrongful dismissal to a 31-year employee.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by using a 'bridging-to-retirement' approach to calculate the notice period and by failing to deduct mitigation income.

However, the Court upheld the motion judge's alternative finding of a 22-month notice period, as well as the awards for loss of pension benefits and a contractual retirement allowance.

The appeal was allowed in part to deduct mitigation income and adjust the notice period calculation, and the cross-appeal was allowed to increase the notice period to 22 months and remit the costs issue.

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 after termination without cause following 31 years of service.

The court applied the principles in Hryniak v. Mauldin and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Considering the Bardal factors, including the employee’s age, lengthy service, supervisory role, and proximity to eligibility for an unreduced pension, the court determined that damages should effectively bridge the employee to his pension entitlement rather than apply a full 22‑month notice period.

The court rejected the employer’s mitigation arguments, finding that the employee’s extensive job search and acceptance of lower-paying retail work satisfied the duty to mitigate.

Judgment was granted for salary to the pension qualification date, compensation for lost pension value, and the contractual retirement allowance.

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.

The applicant, who is visually impaired and 55 years old, was hired on a trial basis as an appointment setter.

After working for seven days, the respondent decided not to hire him permanently.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on age and disability.

The Tribunal found that the respondent accommodated the applicant's visual impairment and that there was no evidence of discriminatory comments or discomfort regarding his age or disability.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, noting that the respondent's decision was likely influenced by the applicant's aggressive behaviour and abusive voicemails.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an Application alleging the respondent college breached a Memorandum of Settlement resolving a prior human rights complaint.

The settlement required the respondent to post human rights posters in visible areas and consider the applicant's suggested locations.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to post the posters within a reasonable time and failed to consider the applicant's suggested locations or notify her of the outcome.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $1,500 in monetary compensation for the breach.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding an employee placed on administrative leave without pay due to bail restrictions following an arrest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator reasonably applied established arbitral jurisprudence requiring employers to attempt to identify an appropriate temporary position for employees precluded from performing normal duties due to pending criminal charges.

The court rejected the employer's argument that this principle was inapplicable because its actions were in response to bail restrictions.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent breached paragraph 3 of a Memorandum of Settlement.

At the hearing, the applicant attempted to raise new concerns regarding paragraphs 2 and 4.

The Tribunal held that the applicant could not raise these new concerns because they were raised 19 to 20 months beyond the six-month limitation period under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, and the applicant provided no reasonable explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's Request for Order During Proceedings for production of documents, finding them irrelevant to the alleged breach of paragraph 3.