Stephanie Pope

The defendants brought a motion to amend their statement of defence in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the proposed amendments constituted a withdrawal of an admission regarding the date written notice of termination was provided.

The court found that the original pleading did not constitute an admission because it was not an unambiguous deliberate concession to a position taken by the plaintiff.

The court granted leave to amend the statement of defence under Rule 26.01, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff, and awarded costs of the motion to the defendants.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action for damages arising from termination of employment without cause.

The appellant was employed for over 19 years and received 8 weeks' notice and severance pay consistent with statutory minimums.

The key issues were whether a termination clause must expressly state it displaces common law notice rights, whether the clause violated the Employment Standards Act by failing to reference severance pay, and whether the clause entitled the appellant to 19 weeks' notice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the termination clause clearly displaced common law rights without requiring express language, did not violate the ESA, and entitled the appellant to 19 weeks' notice (one week per year of service), resulting in an award of compensation for an additional 11 weeks plus interest.

The plaintiff, Joseph Nemeth, sought summary judgment in an employment termination case against Hatch Ltd. Nemeth argued that the termination clause in his employment contract was ambiguous and attempted to contract out of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, particularly regarding severance and benefits, thus entitling him to common law reasonable notice.

The court, following its prior decision in Cook v. Hatch Ltd., found the termination clause unambiguous and compliant with the Act, rejecting the argument that silence on severance and benefits constituted an attempt to contract out.

The court also distinguished Singh v. Qualified Metal Fabricators Ltd., which had found ambiguity in a similar clause.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and summary judgment was granted to the defendant, dismissing the action.

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal and human rights violations after her employment was terminated while on maternity leave.

The defendant moved to strike a paragraph in the statement of claim alleging that the defendant had a history of terminating pregnant women under the guise of restructuring, citing a specific similar incident.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the similar fact evidence was properly pleaded, had significant probative value regarding the claims for human rights violations and punitive damages, and was not scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.