Hill v. 1359768 Ontario Inc. (B&B Towing)
Wrongful Dismissal: Frustration & Company Asset Damages
Summary
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.
Outcome
appeal dismissed on frustration ground; award reduced
Award
damages for tow truck and cellphone disallowed; award reduced
Key Factors
- wrongful dismissal
- frustration of contract
- duty to accommodate
- damages for loss of company assets
- work tools vs perquisites
Related Cases
Kondaj 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.
Wigdor v. Facebook Canada Ltd.
2026 ONCA 572 (CanLII) · 2026-08-07Facebook Canada Wrongful Dismissal: 10 Months Notice Awarded
The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed an appeal regarding the enforceability of termination clauses in an employment contract and the calculation of damages for wrongful dismissal. The court found that the termination provisions were unenforceable because they contravened the Employment Standards Act, 2000, specifically regarding probationary periods and the forfeiture of restricted stock units (RSUs). Consequently, the court upheld a common law notice period of 10 months and awarded damages for the RSU losses, while denying punitive damages due to the employer's conduct not being sufficiently reprehensible.
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.
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.