|
|
- notable cases
| Coe v. Meade |
| 2006 (Ont. C.A.) |
2006 O.J. |
Click here for details |
Coe was granted leave to commence a derivative claim on his own behalf and on behalf of Across-Canada Destination
Services against Karen Meade, a fellow shareholder of Across-Canada, by order of Madam Justice Greer. Justice Greer
also awarded Coe his costs which she fixed at $36,817.
Meade appealled the costs award as well as Justice Greer's refusal to grant Meade security for her costs of both the
application to commence the derivative claim and the intended action itself.
Robert Colson represented Mr. Coe. Ms. Meade's appeal was unanimously dismissed by the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Coe was awarded a further $10,000 in costs in connection with the appeal. |
| GMAC Leaseco v. 1348259 Ontario Ltd. |
| 2005 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
2005 CarswellOnt 4397 |
Click here for details |
|
Midtown Motors Ltd. sought judgment in accordance with the terms of settlement agreed upon in writing by GMAC and Midtown
and a declaration that the Indemnity Agreement between GMAC and Midtown was valid and enforceable. The Court of Appeal
found that the proposed appeal involved matters of public importance relevant to the development of the law and the administration
of justice and leave to appeal was granted. |
| Chann v. RBC Dominion Securities |
| 2004 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
[2004] O.J. No. 5340 |
|
|
The plaintiff, Chann, was employed by the defendant, RBC Dominion Securities Inc. as an investment
banker. His employment was terminated without cause and he was offered settlement package which
consisted in part of $125,000 as discretionary cash bonus and $200,000 as pay in lieu of reasonable
notice. Chann refused the settlement offer and brought action against RBC Dominion Securities Inc.
for wrongful dismissal. The Court found that RBC Securities Inc. did not exercise its discretion fairly
and reasonably in awarding Chann a discretionary cash bonus of $125,000 for the 2002 fiscal year. |
| McCoy v. McLaren, Morris & Todd |
| 2001 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
[2001] O.J. No. 18 |
|
|
From late 1997 until June 1998, McCoy's commissions dropped, and he ran a deficit of commissions
totalling $22,045. As a result, McLaren advised McCoy that his draw against commission was reduced
to $760 per week. McCoy retained a lawyer, who wrote to McLaren alleging that McCoy had been
constructively dismissed. The Court dismissed the action and found that McLaren was entitled to
change the amount of the draw on commission in light of McCoy's diminished performance. |
| Terneoy v. RBC Dominion Securities Inc. |
| 2000 (Ont. S.C.J.) |
[2000] O.J. No. 3428 |
|
|
Ternoey sustained losses through his speculation in the commodities market while he was committee
of his mother's estate. Terneoy's motion to amend the name of the plaintiff to that of the estate of his
deceased mother was dismissed, as the criteria essential for amendment were not met. Furthermore,
the granting of the amendment would create prejudice to RBC Dominion Securities not compensable
by costs and there were no special circumstances that would justify such an amendment. |
| Schumacher v. Toronto Dominion Bank |
| 1997 (Ont. C.A.) |
173 D.L.R. (4th) 577 |
Click here for details |
|
As a result of the Bank's unilateral change in Schumacher's employment, he commenced an action for constructive dismissal.
The Court of Appeal found that a reasonable person in employee's situation would have felt that essential terms of his
employment contract had been substantially changed. Schumacher was awarded 13 months pay in lieu of notice and
damages totalling $1.7 million. |
| Schumacher v. Toronto Dominion Bank |
| 1997 (Ont. Gen.Div) |
147 D.L.R. (4th) 128 |
Click
here for details |
|
This was a landmark decision which broke important legal ground for
employees whose compensation is variable and largely dependent on so-called
discretionary bonuses. It was the largest judgment for wrongful dismissal
that had ever been awarded in Canada at the time, and the trial judge's
decision marked important breakthroughs in several areas of the law relating
to wrongful dismissal. The trial judge's decision was unanimously upheld... [ more ] |
| Vulcan Packaging Inc. v. Capital Ventures |
| 1990 (Ont. C.A.) |
71 O.R. (2d) 554 |
|
|
Vulcan Packaging Inc. agreed to purchase industrial land from Capital Ventures conditional upon the
clean up of soil contaminants and a report from environmental engineers confirming that specific
remedial work had been carried out. Vulcan Packaging Inc. refused to close the purchase on the
grounds that these conditions were not fulfilled and brought an action for specific performance with
an abatement in the purchase price. The trial judge stated that purchaser was not entitled to
specific performance because the purchaser did not quantify the abatement. The Court of Appeal
found there was no requirement at law that a purchaser seeking specific performance with an
abatement specify the amount of the abatement or pay the proposed abatement into court or to a
third party to hold in escrow. |
|
|
|
