T. Weisberg

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action requested a case conference to schedule a summary judgment motion and establish a timetable.

The defendant opposed, arguing the case was not appropriate for summary judgment due to issues regarding the start date, mitigation, and claims for general and punitive damages.

The court agreed with the defendant, finding that a summary trial was more appropriate than a summary judgment motion, and established a timetable leading to a two-day summary trial.

The defendant employer brought a motion to strike paragraphs from the plaintiff employee's wrongful dismissal Statement of Claim, arguing they improperly disclosed privileged settlement offers.

The plaintiff argued the offers were threats relevant to his claim for bad faith and punitive damages.

The court found there was a triable issue regarding the characterization of the offers, applying an 'air of reality' test.

However, the court struck the impugned paragraphs with leave to amend because they improperly pleaded evidence rather than material facts.

The plaintiff, a production supervisor with 19 years of service, brought an action for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for cause.

The employer alleged that 1500 defective camshafts were produced on the plaintiff's shift, and that the plaintiff was dishonest during the subsequent investigation.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that the defective parts were indeed produced on the plaintiff's shift and that the plaintiff lied about his involvement.

Applying the McKinley test, the court held that the plaintiff's failure to properly supervise the line, combined with his dishonesty and prior disciplinary record, constituted serious misconduct that struck at the heart of the employment relationship.

The action was dismissed.

A unionized employee commenced a civil action alleging wrongful dismissal and seeking damages related to employment termination and retiree health benefits under a voluntary separation package and a related retiree benefits program.

The employer moved under Rule 21 to dismiss the action on the basis that the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitration under s. 48 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The employee sought leave to file a fresh as amended statement of claim focusing on entitlement to benefits under a retiree health benefits program.

Applying the Weber framework, the court held that the essential character of the dispute arose from the employment relationship governed by a collective agreement.

Because the claims were fundamentally employment-related and already the subject of a grievance process, the court lacked jurisdiction and the action had to proceed through labour arbitration.