Kerr v. Sezerman

Maestra v. Blue Line Distribution Limited et al.

Employment Case: Default Judgment & Simplified Procedure

This is a procedural motion in an employment-related action concerning default judgment, simplified procedure jurisdiction, and venue. The court adjourned multiple motions without prejudice due to issues with service on dissolved corporations, the monetary cap for simplified procedure, and the admissibility of hearsay evidence to prove unliquidated damages.

Geopro Consulting Ltd v. Nyland

Absolute Privilege in Professional Complaints

This is a procedural ruling on a Rule 21 motion to strike a statement of claim. The court determined that communications made to the Professional Geoscientists Ontario were absolutely privileged and that the action constituted an abuse of process, leading to the dismissal of the claim.

Van Drunen v. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories

This is a procedural ruling in an employment dispute concerning motions for particulars and discovery. The court addressed whether defendants were entitled to full particulars after delivering a defence and whether specific documents (DEI Survey and Ombudsperson Report) were discoverable, ultimately dismissing the motions to strike and for a protective order.

Re 1242939 B.C. Unlimited Liability Company et al (formerly Hudson's Bay Company ULC et al)

A procedural ruling in a CCAA insolvency proceeding concerning the approval of a settlement term sheet and third-party releases affecting employees, specifically addressing the characterization of hardship payments for Extended LTD recipients and the granting of a sealing order to protect their confidential information.

1486151 Ontario Limited (Diverse Transportation) v. Chen

Anti-SLAPP: Employment Dispute vs Public Interest

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision on an anti-SLAPP motion brought by a former employee against a former employer. The central issue is whether the former employee's communications, which included allegations of unpaid wages and threats to contact clients, constituted a matter of public interest or merely an employment dispute. The Court of Appeal reviewed the application of the anti-SLAPP framework under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, specifically the balancing test between public interest in expression and the harm to reputation.