B. v Milo-Food & Agricultural Infrastructure & Services Inc.
Wrongful Dismissal: Limitation Periods & Working Notice
Appeal history
- Appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario: B. v. Milo-Food & Agricultural Infrastructure & Services Inc., 2017 ONCA 1004 (CanLII) (appeal allowed in part; employer's cross-appeal dismissed; order striking severance pay claim set aside)
Summary
This is a merits decision addressing the limitation periods for wrongful dismissal, intentional infliction of mental distress, and human rights claims following a termination where the plaintiff was given two years' working notice. The court held that the wrongful dismissal and severance pay claims were statute-barred because the action was commenced more than two years after the notice of termination, whereas the tort and human rights claims were not statute-barred as the alleged discriminatory and harassing conduct continued throughout the notice period.
Outcome
Wrongful dismissal and severance pay claims dismissed as statute-barred; intentional infliction of mental distress and human rights claims allowed to proceed.
Key Factors
- wrongful dismissal
- limitation periods
- working notice
- intentional infliction of mental distress
- human rights violations
Related Cases
P. v. Sky Service F.B.O. Inc.
2026 ONSC 5334 (CanLII) · 2026-09-18Wrongful Dismissal: Appeal Dismissed as Statute-Barred
The Divisional Court dismissed an appeal from a motion judge's decision granting summary judgment to the employer, ruling that the employee's wrongful dismissal claim was statute-barred. The court applied the Limitations Act, 2002, finding that the limitation period began on the date of dismissal and was not postponed by the claimant's misunderstanding of legal significance or by commencing proceedings in the wrong forum.
B. et al. v. Guycan Ltd.
2026 ONSC 5209 (CanLII) · 2026-09-14Wrongful Dismissal: Employee Status and Unpaid Commissions
This is a merits decision in a wrongful dismissal case involving an individual who worked through a personal corporation. The court determined the individual was an employee rather than an independent contractor, rejected the claim of constructive dismissal, and found that the individual had resigned. The court awarded damages for unpaid statutory public holiday pay and commissions, but found no entitlement to pay in lieu of reasonable notice.
K. v. Crossbridge Condominium Services Ltd.
2026 ONCA 636 (CanLII) · 2026-09-10Wrongful Dismissal: Successor Liability & Notice Appeal
This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision granting summary judgment for common law reasonable notice and lost benefits in a wrongful dismissal case involving a building services provider. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that the incoming provider was deemed an employer under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, and confirming the application of statutory interpretation principles to establish successor liability.
A. v. The Chiefs of Ontario
2026 ONSC 5099 (CanLII) · 2026-09-01This is a procedural ruling regarding the award of substantial indemnity costs in a dispute involving the Chiefs of Ontario. The court considered whether the conduct of the parties warranted such costs, addressing issues of vexatious conduct by a self-represented litigant and the reasonableness of costs at the preliminary motion stage.
H. v. 1359768 Ontario Inc. (B&B Towing)
2026 ONCA 577 (CanLII) · 2026-08-10Wrongful Dismissal: Frustration & Company Asset Damages
This is an appeal from a wrongful dismissal decision where the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal regarding the issue of frustration of contract. The court found that the employment contract was not frustrated because the employee's essential duties were accommodable and there was a reasonable likelihood of return to work. Additionally, the court reduced the damages award by disallowing compensation for the loss of use of a company tow truck and cellphone, determining these were work tools rather than perquisites.
More Ontario employment decisions from 2017
This summary was written by AI from the published decision and its headnote. It is not an official version of the decision; read the full text on CanLII before relying on it. This is legal information, not legal advice. Ontario Severance is an educational tool. If you are facing a serious employment law matter, consult with a qualified employment lawyer in Ontario.