Todd Weisberg

The defendants moved to transfer the action from Toronto to Sudbury, arguing that Sudbury was a significantly better venue.

The plaintiff opposed, partly on the basis that the motion was brought late.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's procedural objection, finding no prejudice from the three-day delay.

Applying Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) holistically, the court found that factors such as where the events occurred, where damages were sustained, the subject matter's location, and the convenience of parties and most witnesses favored Sudbury.

The court also noted that the availability of case management and judicial facilities was neutral.

The motion to transfer was granted.

An employee appealed the dismissal of her action against her former employer for constructive dismissal, intentional infliction of mental distress, and inducing breach of contract.

The employee had resigned after her mentor and superior departed the company, citing increased workload and a poisoned work environment.

The trial judge found no causal link between the alleged breaches and the resignation, and that the employee had acquiesced in the changed working conditions over an extended period.

The trial judge also rejected claims of intentional infliction of mental distress arising from an investigation into alleged software sabotage, finding the investigation was conducted in good faith.

The inducing breach of contract claim failed due to lack of evidence of a valid contract and intent to breach.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action.

The appellant was employed as a production supervisor and was terminated for cause after approximately 19.5 years of continuous employment.

The termination was based on his allowing 1,500 defective camshafts with roping marks to be processed during his shift and subsequently lying about the incident.

The trial judge found that the appellant's failure to supervise, combined with his dishonesty, constituted just cause for termination.

The appellant argued the trial judge reversed the onus of proof and demonstrated bias.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in the application of the just cause test and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The respondent was employed as President and CEO of the appellant's television division under a fixed-term employment agreement expiring October 31, 2011.

The agreement provided for a two-year severance payment and a six-month paid sabbatical upon expiry.

When the contract expired, the parties continued negotiations for a new agreement but could not reach consensus.

The appellant refused to pay the severance or arrange the sabbatical, claiming the respondent had waived these entitlements.

The appellant subsequently terminated the respondent's employment with eight months' notice and a two-month severance package.

The respondent obtained summary judgment for breach of contract, recovering damages for the two-year severance payment and payment in lieu of the sabbatical.

On appeal, the appellant argued the respondent had waived the sabbatical entitlement and that the severance provision was invalid under the Employment Standards Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no valid waiver and rejecting the argument that an inapplicable termination clause could void the severance entitlement.

The plaintiff, FLS Transportation Services Inc., sought an interim injunction against former employees and their new employer, Charger Logistics Inc., to restrain them from working for a competitor, soliciting clients and employees, and misusing confidential information.

The court applied the three-part test for an interlocutory injunction (serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, balance of convenience) and also considered the "clean hands" doctrine.

The court found that FLS failed to establish a strong prima facie case for breach of restrictive covenants, breach of confidence, or fiduciary duty, largely due to FLS's own prior statements in other proceedings that the information was not confidential.

Furthermore, FLS failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

The motion was dismissed, also noting that FLS's conduct in misrepresenting the court's order to a client constituted a failure to come to court with "clean hands."

The plaintiff brought an action against her former employer for constructive dismissal, bad faith termination, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and inducing breach of contract.

She alleged she was constructively dismissed due to increased hours and a poisoned work environment.

She also claimed the employer acted in bad faith and intentionally inflicted mental suffering by investigating her for post-employment sabotage of its billing system and reporting her to the police.

Finally, she alleged the employer induced a breach of a consulting contract she had with a third party.

The court dismissed the action in its entirety, finding the plaintiff resigned due to dissatisfaction with management, condoned any changes to her working conditions, and that the employer conducted its investigation in good faith.

The court also found no valid contract existed to support the inducing breach claim.