Leave to Amend — Ontario Employment Law

S. 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 leaving limitations defences to be pleaded.

S. 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.

K. v. N.

This is a procedural ruling on a motion to strike pleadings and an application for leave to amend in an employment-related action. The court addressed whether references to without-prejudice settlement communications could be pleaded, dismissed the motion to strike for pleading evidence, and denied leave to amend the plaintiffs' claims against individual directors due to lack of particularity.

B. v. The Corporation of Norfolk County et al

Employment: Leave to Amend Pleadings for Human Rights Claims

This is an interlocutory motion regarding leave to amend a statement of claim in an employment dispute. The plaintiff sought to add causes of action including breaches of the Human Rights Code, intrusion upon seclusion, and defamation to existing claims of wrongful dismissal and toxic work environment. The court granted leave in part, allowing Human Rights Code claims based on the same factual matrix despite limitation period issues, but denied leave for negligent infliction of mental suffering and intentional interference with contractual relations due to insufficient material facts.

T. v. Chair Source

Wrongful Dismissal: Individual Liability & Privity

This is an interlocutory proceeding involving a wrongful dismissal claim brought against both a corporate entity and an individual defendant. The court addressed whether lack of privity of contract precludes liability for the individual defendant and whether the proposed amendments to the statement of claim adequately pleaded the elements of intentional infliction of mental suffering. Leave to amend was granted to clarify claims, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

C. v. Canada (AG)

C. v Canada: Motion to Strike Pleadings Including Wrongful Dismissal

This is an interlocutory motion to strike pleadings in a civil action where the plaintiffs alleged wrongful or constructive dismissal alongside various torts and administrative law claims against the Crown. The court applied the liberal construction standard to determine if the claims disclosed a reasonable cause of action, partially striking some claims with leave to amend while allowing others, such as misfeasance in public office, to proceed to trial.

L. v. Magna International Inc.

L. v. Magna: Negligent Workplace Investigation Appeal

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision refusing leave to amend a statement of claim in a wrongful dismissal action. The appellant sought to add allegations of gross negligence and breach of statutory duty against the employer's directors and officers for failing to ensure compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act during workplace harassment investigations. The Court of Appeal upheld the refusal, finding that no tort of negligent investigation exists in Ontario and that breach of statutory duty does not give rise to tort liability.

M. v. McMaster University

Workplace Discrimination: Collective Agreement Dispute

This is an interlocutory proceeding concerning a plaintiff's Statement of Claim against McMaster University. The court addressed whether the claim was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the claim was structurally deficient and unintelligible. The plaintiff alleged the university violated a Collective Agreement by declaring him persona non grata and accused the union of delaying the grievance process. The court granted leave to amend the Statement of Claim to disclose a valid cause of action, acknowledging a potential core complaint obscured by drafting deficiencies.

C. v. The Bank of Nova Scotia

This is an interlocutory motion regarding leave to amend pleadings in a wrongful dismissal action brought by a former employee against their employer. The plaintiff sought to add causes of action including defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent investigation, raising issues regarding the application of the Limitations Act, 2002 and the tenability of these new claims under Ontario law.

M. v. The City of Mississauga

Wrongful Dismissal: Leave to Amend Just Cause Defence

This is an interlocutory motion in a wrongful dismissal case involving M. and the City of Mississauga. The defendant sought leave to amend its Statement of Defence to withdraw the allegation of just cause termination, which the plaintiff opposed citing prejudice and discovery implications. The court granted leave to amend, finding that the allegation of just cause was not an admission under Rule 51.05 and that prejudice could be compensated by costs. The plaintiff's requests for early document production and discovery were denied as premature.

C. v G. et al.

Wrongful Dismissal: Common Employer Doctrine Struck

This is an interlocutory decision regarding a wrongful dismissal claim where the plaintiff alleged the City of Toronto was her common employer with a child care centre. The court addressed motions to strike the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and to amend the pleadings, ultimately ruling that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient material facts to support the common employer doctrine.

T. v. Canada Cartage Systems Diversified GP Inc.

Wrongful Dismissal: Pleadings Struck Out with Leave to Amend

This is an interlocutory proceeding concerning a motion to strike a statement of claim in a wrongful dismissal action. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's pleadings were deficient, containing irrelevant, immaterial, and scandalous allegations, and included extrinsic evidence rather than concise material facts. The court struck out the statement of claim with leave to amend to address these procedural deficiencies.

V. v Association of Professional Engineers on Ontario

Wrongful Dismissal: Leave to Amend for Bad Faith Damages

This is an interlocutory motion regarding a wrongful dismissal claim where the plaintiff sought leave to amend their statement of claim. The plaintiff aimed to add allegations of bad faith, harassment, and unwarranted disciplinary proceedings by the employer, seeking moral, aggravated, and punitive damages. The court granted leave to amend, finding that the proposed claims did not constitute an abuse of process or collateral attack on ongoing disciplinary proceedings.

R. v PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP

This is a procedural ruling on an appellant's motion for leave to amend their Statement of Claim to include a claim of gender discrimination and additional particulars. The Divisional Court reviewed whether the Master erred in denying leave based on limitation periods, prejudice, and improper pleading of evidence.

Hampton Securities Limited v D.

This is an interlocutory motion regarding a defendant's application for leave to amend her pleadings to include claims for constructive dismissal and unpaid wages under the Employment Standards Act. The plaintiff opposed the amendments, arguing abuse of process, delay, and that the wage claims were statute-barred by limitation periods. The court also considered whether to sever the defamation counterclaim to ensure a timely trial of the main action.

T. v. University of Western Ontario

Medical Resident Tort Claims Against University Faculty

This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a motion judge's decision striking out the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff was dismissed from a medical residency programme and sued the university and individual faculty members for various torts. The motion judge struck out the entire statement of claim against the individual respondents and the claim of intimidation against the university, and refused to grant leave to amend. This court decided to allow the appeal in part to grant the plaintiff leave to amend her statement of claim because the motion judge gave no reasons for denying it.

H. v. GXS Canada Inc.

H. v. GXS Canada Inc. - Wrongful Dismissal Appeal

This appeal concerns a wrongful dismissal claim where the employee was terminated without cause after lengthy service. The motion judge upheld the employer's Layoff Policy, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision or basis for intervention.

S. v H.

S. v H.: Pleadings and Costs in Employment Dispute

This is a procedural ruling concerning pleadings and costs in an employment law dispute. The court addressed motions to strike portions of the statement of claim for being scandalous or vexatious, granted leave to amend, and reserved costs to the trial judge.

L. v. Westerkirk Capital Inc.

Wrongful Dismissal: Striking Pleadings & LTIP Claim

This is an interlocutory motion regarding the striking of portions of a plaintiff's statement of claim in a wrongful dismissal action. The defendant sought to strike allegations regarding the defendant's corporate structure and family disputes as irrelevant, scandalous, or vexatious. The court applied principles of caution and relevance, ultimately denying the plaintiff's leave to amend the pleadings because they could not be remedied to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

W. v. Legacy Private Trust

Wrongful Dismissal: Discovery on Mitigation & Counterclaim Amendment

This is an interlocutory motion in a wrongful dismissal case addressing discovery disputes and amendments to a counterclaim. The court ordered the plaintiff to answer questions regarding mitigation of damages, rejecting confidentiality objections, and granted the defendants leave to amend their counterclaim to include breach of confidence and unjust enrichment.