Boyce Estate v. 2113626 Ontario Inc. (Hampton Inn and Suites)
Common Employer Doctrine: Corporate vs Individual Liability
Summary
This is a summary judgment decision addressing liability in a wrongful dismissal context, specifically focusing on the common employer doctrine. The court applied the two-part test from O’Reilly and Downtown Eatery to determine if a franchisee and its paymaster constituted a common employer, finding liability against the corporate entity. However, the court dismissed the claim against the individual officer, ruling that the common employer doctrine does not pierce the corporate veil absent evidence of personal intent to contract.
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in part; liability found against corporate entity, claim against individual officer dismissed.
Key Factors
- common employer doctrine
- wrongful dismissal
- corporate veil piercing
- summary judgment
- franchisee liability
Related Cases
Contardi v. Grand Cheese
2026 ONSC 4045 (CanLII) · 2026-07-13Wrongful Dismissal: Senior Executive Awarded 27 Months Notice
This is a default judgment ruling in a wrongful dismissal case involving a senior executive with lengthy service who was constructively dismissed without just cause. The court established liability based on deemed admissions and applied the Paquette v. TeraGo Networks Inc. principle regarding benefits continuity. The plaintiff was awarded twenty-seven months' pay in lieu of reasonable notice with benefits, along with partial indemnity costs and interest.
Brian Allan Cutajar v. Automobile Specialties Inc. et al
2026 ONSC 3956 (CanLII) · 2026-07-07Constructive Dismissal: Common Employer Liability & Bad Faith Damages
This is a default judgment case involving wrongful and constructive dismissal claims against an employer and related entities. The court found the defendants liable under the common employer doctrine and awarded damages for constructive dismissal, including unpaid wages, eight weeks of termination pay, and additional damages for bad faith conduct.
Silva v. Royal Bank of Canada
2026 ONSC 3841 (CanLII) · 2026-06-30Silva v RBC: 16 Months Notice for Wrongful Dismissal
This wrongful dismissal case involved a financial planner terminated for alleged cause, which the court set aside after finding the employer's investigation inadequate and biased. The court awarded sixteen months' reasonable notice and damages for aggravated mental distress and bad faith in the manner of dismissal, while rejecting the employer's mitigation defence.
Wilsher v. Olympic Wholesale
2026 ONSC 3620 (CanLII) · 2026-06-26Wrongful Dismissal: 17-Year Supervisor Awarded 19 Months Notice
This wrongful dismissal case addressed whether a supervisor's long-standing practice of 'topping up' hours constituted just cause for termination under the ESA. The court found just cause was not established and determined reasonable notice based on the Bardal factors for a 55-year-old employee with 17 years of service. The court awarded 19 months' pay in lieu of notice, extending the base period by 14 months due to bad faith in the manner of dismissal.
McCarthy v. Bison Transport Inc.
2026 ONSC 3729 (CanLII) · 2026-06-25McCarthy v. Bison Transport: Drug Policy Termination
This wrongful dismissal case involved an employee terminated for cause following a second positive drug test, raising issues regarding safety-sensitive policies, human rights accommodation, and the justification of dismissal. The court found the termination justified due to consistent policy enforcement and lack of disability, dismissing the wrongful dismissal claim. However, the court assessed hypothetical damages, awarding four months' notice if the dismissal had been wrongful, and dismissed overtime claims as barred by limitation periods or unsupported by evidence.
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.