Stephen LeMesurier

The appellant, an unsalaried truck driver, appealed the dismissal of his constructive dismissal claim.

He alleged a new compensation plan introduced by the respondent substantially and detrimentally changed his terms of employment.

The trial judge found insufficient evidence of detriment.

On appeal, the appellant raised three grounds: improper admission of hearsay evidence, striking of an affidavit without applying *Farber v. Royal Trust Co.*, and refusal to allow impeachment of a witness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the hearsay objection was untimely, the trial judge's assessment of the affidavit's probative value was reasonable, and the impeachment attempt did not comply with the *Evidence Act* and was on a peripheral point.

A motion to adduce fresh evidence was also dismissed as unnecessary.

The defendant brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's amended statement of claim alleging defamation.

The defamation claim was based on statements communicated by the defendant to the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (OMVIC) regarding customer complaints and alleged ethical breaches by the plaintiff.

The defendant argued that these statements were protected by absolute privilege.

The court granted the motion, finding that confidential communications of complaints to a statutory body exercising disciplinary powers, as a step incidental to quasi-judicial proceedings, are protected by absolute privilege, thus disclosing no reasonable cause of action for defamation.

This decision addresses the costs of a wrongful dismissal action following a successful summary judgment motion where the plaintiff was awarded five months' notice.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $47,519.40, while the defendant sought costs related to abandoned claims for punitive, aggravated, moral, and Human Rights Code damages.

The court awarded the plaintiff $22,000 in all-inclusive costs, finding that while the recovery was within Small Claims Court limits, commencing the action in Superior Court was initially appropriate due to the complexity of claims and defences.

The court declined to make a cross-award for costs related to abandoned claims, emphasizing that abandoning claims can be a reasonable litigation step and that proportionality and fairness are key considerations in costs awards.

The plaintiff, Sarah Nahum, was terminated without cause by the defendant, Honeycomb Hospitality Inc., after four and a half months of employment while five months pregnant.

On a summary judgment motion, the court addressed the reasonable notice period, specifically considering the impact of pregnancy on its calculation.

The court found pregnancy to be a Bardal-type factor affecting employability and awarded the plaintiff five months' notice, resulting in damages of $34,194.87.

The plaintiff was terminated without cause after six years of employment as Vice-President of Finance.

Following a threatening email from the plaintiff regarding his severance package, the employer conducted a forensic investigation and discovered he had downloaded copyrighted media using peer-to-peer software on his work computer.

The employer then alleged after-acquired cause.

The court found the misconduct did not amount to just cause, as there was no nefarious intent, no actual harm to the employer, and the conduct was not incompatible with continued employment.

The court also struck down the termination clause for violating the Employment Standards Act, 2000, and awarded the plaintiff 12 months' reasonable notice.

A claim for punitive damages was dismissed.