Walter T. Langley

Donald Schultz, a director at Canada Lands Company CLC, was terminated with cause for alleged misconduct during procurement processes.

The court found that while some of Schultz's actions were inappropriate (e.g., providing a draft recommendation memo with confidential competitor information, attending social events with proponents during procurement), they did not constitute misconduct severe enough to warrant termination with cause, especially considering mitigating factors such as tight timelines, the employer's inconsistent policy enforcement, and lack of proper investigation.

The court awarded Schultz 12 months' reasonable notice, benefits, and a portion of his bonus, but denied moral and punitive damages.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a motion judge’s refusal to grant summary judgment dismissing a professional negligence claim against a solicitor.

The claim alleged that the solicitor failed to advise the plaintiff regarding a limitation period for commencing an action against a disability insurer.

The court considered whether the absence of expert evidence required dismissal of the claim at the summary judgment stage.

It held that expert evidence is not invariably required when the moving party has also failed to file such evidence and the evidentiary record does not permit a full appreciation of the issues.

Leave to appeal was denied because the motion judge reasonably concluded that the factual record required further development at trial.

On a Rule 21 motion, the moving parties sought to stay or dismiss a negligence and breach of contract action for want of court jurisdiction.

The court applied the essential character framework and considered whether the dispute arose from collective agreement administration or from alleged promises and representations made outside that framework.

The court held that the pleaded claim, including alleged negligent misrepresentation and reliance relating to disability litigation steps and a missed limitation period, was arguable as a civil negligence claim not confined to labour board exclusivity.

The motion to stay or dismiss was therefore refused, and directions were set for further submissions.

The defendants, a lawyer and her law firm retained by a union, brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a negligence claim arising from the plaintiff’s lost opportunity to sue for long‑term disability benefits.

The moving parties argued that their retainer was limited to advising the union on accommodation and grievance matters and did not include pursuing litigation against the disability insurer before the limitation period expired.

The plaintiff argued that a solicitor may owe a duty of care even absent a formal solicitor‑client relationship where a relationship of proximity and reliance exists.

The court held that the evidentiary record did not permit a full appreciation of the factual circumstances surrounding the meetings and communications between the plaintiff and the lawyer.

As a result, whether a duty of care arose could not be determined without trial.