Stephen A. McArthur

The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without cause.

The parties had agreed to the essential terms of employment in May 2007.

After the plaintiff started working, the defendant presented a document containing a termination clause limiting notice to the minimums under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The court held that the termination clause was null and void because the defendant provided no new consideration for the amendment to the existing oral contract.

The plaintiff was awarded damages based on a reasonable notice period of 3.9 months.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a paragraph of the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim alleging intentional infliction of mental suffering arising from a false accusation of theft in the employment context.

The defendant argued the pleading failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action under the elements established by the Court of Appeal for the tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The court held that, at the pleadings stage, the alleged factual matrix—including a false accusation of criminal conduct against a long‑term employee—could potentially satisfy the requirement of flagrant or outrageous conduct calculated to cause harm resulting in a visible and provable illness.

Accepting the pleaded facts as true, the court found it was not plain and obvious the claim would fail.

The motion to strike was therefore dismissed.