Woodley v. Ridgehill Ford Sales (1980) Ltd.

Faragher v. ProRich Seeds (2016) Inc.

Constructive Dismissal: Dependent Contractor Awarded 21 Months Notice

This case addresses whether a salesperson was an employee, independent contractor, or dependent contractor, ultimately finding dependent contractor status. The court held that the employer's unilateral withholding of a long-standing monthly advance constituted constructive dismissal, entitling the plaintiff to reasonable notice.

Nielson v. Township of Morley

Constructive Dismissal: Potter Test Applied

This wrongful dismissal case addressed whether the Township of Morley's actions constituted a constructive dismissal of the employee. The court found that the employer did not unilaterally change an essential term of the contract and that a reasonable employee would have persevered, thus constructive dismissal was not established. Consequently, the claim for damages was dismissed, although an alternative assessment of notice was noted as one year reduced to six months had liability been found.

Flegg v. Sigma Lithium Corporation

Constructive Dismissal: Damages for Unilateral Modifications

This case addresses whether unilateral modifications to duties and marginalization amounted to constructive dismissal, applying the Bardol factors to determine reasonable notice. The court found constructive dismissal established and awarded damages in lieu of notice, along with aggravated and punitive damages due to the employer's egregious conduct.

Smith v. Rotalec Canada Inc.

Employment: Leave to Amend Pleadings for Corporate Veil

This is a procedural ruling on a motion to amend pleadings in an employment law action involving constructive dismissal and unpaid commissions. The court granted leave to add corporate veil allegations against a directing mind, finding that a reasonable cause of action was disclosed and that the amendments were not time-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Saleem v. University Health Network

This is an interlocutory procedural decision regarding a motion to amend pleadings in an employment dispute involving constructive dismissal and Human Rights Code allegations. The court applied the mandatory test under r. 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, permitting amendments that particularized the constructive dismissal claim while refusing those parts deemed statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002. The court allowed additional heads of damages (aggravated and punitive) as they were based on the same facts rather than new causes of action.