Yan David Payne

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal against her former employer.

The employer unilaterally altered the plaintiff's job description from office manager to accountant and revoked her ability to attend bonus trips and partnership meetings.

The plaintiff rejected the new terms, and the employer subsequently terminated her.

The court found that the plaintiff did not resign and that the employer did not have just cause for dismissal.

The court held that the employer repudiated the employment contract by unilaterally changing fundamental terms.

The plaintiff was awarded $256,902.93 in damages, representing the balance of her salary under a five-year contract and the value of a 15% ownership interest promised in the contract.

The appellants appealed an order of the motion judge regarding the assessment of a solicitor's account.

On consent, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in concluding that a Master's order had to be set aside before he had jurisdiction.

The corporate client was permitted to proceed directly to an assessment of its account, while the individual client was not.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the appellant.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that awarded a remedy based on misrepresentation.

The appellants argued that the trial judge erred by making findings of fraudulent misrepresentation after the respondents' counsel expressly stated at the outset of trial that they were not claiming fraud.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while a remedy could not be based on fraud, the trial judge properly characterized the misrepresentations as negligent, which fully justified the remedy awarded.

The appellant landlord appealed a trial decision finding that an oral agreement between the parties validly terminated a residential tenancy.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 is a complete code and mandates written notice to terminate a tenancy.

The trial judge's finding of an oral agreement was an error in law.

The court set aside the trial judgment and awarded the landlord $6,095.00 for unpaid rent, plus costs.

The appellant sued her employer of 28 years for wrongful and/or constructive dismissal.

Shortly after commencing the lawsuit, she applied for and received long-term disability benefits, indicating on the application that she was still employed.

The employer successfully moved for summary judgment on the basis that the appellant was estopped from claiming dismissal due to her disability application.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that whether the appellant's actions amounted to a representation, whether the employer could rely on it, and whether there was detrimental reliance were triable issues.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that found he had illegally locked out the respondent tenants and failed to accommodate a tenant's disability.

The landlord argued he was denied procedural fairness because the Tribunal waived the 10-day notice requirement and refused his request for an adjournment to obtain police records.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's refusal to grant an adjournment denied the landlord a meaningful opportunity to be heard and constituted a fundamental error in law.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment ordering him to pay outstanding legal fees to his former solicitors and dismissing his counterclaim for an assessment of those accounts.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by failing to consider the court's inherent jurisdiction to refer accounts for assessment within twelve months of delivery, especially given the solicitors' failure to advise the client of his right to an assessment.

The summary judgment was set aside and the accounts were referred to an Assessment Officer.

Following a successful appeal that dismissed the plaintiff's action due to a five-year delay, the appellant sought partial indemnity costs for the motion for leave and the appeal.

The respondent opposed the costs award, arguing impecuniosity and blaming his former solicitor for the delay.

The Divisional Court rejected the respondent's arguments, finding that a costs award was appropriate.

The court fixed the costs payable to the appellant at $7,500 all-inclusive, considering the overall reasonableness of the amount.

The plaintiff's action was struck from the trial list after he failed to attend the trial.

Five years later, a motion judge restored the action, applying the test for dismissal for delay.

The defendant appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in principle by not applying the test for setting aside a judgment for failure to attend trial, which requires the plaintiff to explain the failure to attend, explain the delay in seeking relief, and demonstrate that the action has merit.

Given the plaintiff's unexplained five-year delay and lack of evidence showing merit, the appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.