Warren Woods Land Corporation v. 1636891 Ontario Inc.
The primary issue on appeal was whether the appellant satisfied the three criteria for the granting of a stay under rule 63.02(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.The order sought to be stayed was an order removing all notices filed by the appellant on the land of the respondents (the "Owner"). The application judge held that the appellant did not have an interest in the land in question at the time the notices were registered.
Article 3.14 of the Development Management Agreement between the appellant and respondent contained a provision, which gave the appellant an option to purchase the land. The respondent was disappointed with the appellant's work and advised the appellant that it wished to terminate the Agreement. The respondent did not take the required steps to terminate as contemplated by the Agreement.
The appellant registered the notices in question on October 16 and 28, 2009, claiming entitlement to an unregistered interest in the Owner's property pursuant to s.71(1) of the Land Titles Act. The respondent subsequently sent a Notice of Complaint to the appellant on August 8, 2011, which referred to default on the part of the appellant. The appellant replied to the respondent's Notice of Complaint by letter a two and a half weeks later, providing its understanding of their agreement. Further, the respondent claimed to have formally terminated the Agreement on August 30, 2011 and brought an application to have the notices that the respondent registered on title removed.
Additionally, the appellant claimed that the fact the Agreement created a contingent option to purchase land signified that it had an interest in the land. The respondent submitted that the issue whether an interest in land had been created was a question of mixed law and fact. Moreover, they stated that the appellant only had a right to an "incorporeal hereditament" at common law, which is an intangible right. In
Bank of Montreal v. Dynex Petroleum Ltd, the court held, "At common law, an interest in land could issue from a corporeal hereditament but not from an incorporeal hereditament". Therefore, the respondent's position was that since the appellant only had a right to an incorporeal hereditament, it did not have an interest in the land in dispute at the time it registered the notices.
The respondent also argued that Article 3.14 of the Development Management Agreement was void because it contained no time restrictions and thus violated the rule against perpetuities. According to
Politzer v. Metropolitan Homes Ltd, an equitable interest is void if it can vest beyond the perpetuity period of twenty-one years.
The Court articulated the three criteria for the granting of a stay:
- The appeal must raise a serious question;
- The appellant must demonstrate that it would suffer irreparable hard if the stay were not granted;
- Finally, on a balance of convenience, the appellant must satisfy the court that it would suffer greater harm if the stay were not granted than the respondents would suffer if the stay were granted.
In dismissing the appeal, the Court held that there was not a serious questioned to be determined. The appellant failed to provide any reasons why the common law prohibition on the creation of an interest in land from an incorporeal hereditament should not apply. Concerning the rule against perpetuities, the Court found that the appellant did not respond to the respondent's claim that the Agreement was void since it was in contravention of the rule.
Additionally, the Court noted that refusing a stay would not result in irreparable harm to the appellant. Irreparable harm is harm that cannot be quantified in monetary terms. The Court found that the appellant would not be able to enforce the Agreement by claiming specific performance, as it intended to sell the lands and it did not put forth evidence that the lands were unique in any fashion.
The appellant failed to satisfy the third criteria as the Court declared that the balance of convenience did not favour granting a stay. If a stay were granted, the respondent would not be able to refinance the lands and sell them pending the outcome of the appeal. On the contrary, if a stay were not granted, the appellant would not be without recourse as it would still be in a position to sue for damages for alleged breach of the Agreement.
Elsegood v. Cambridge Spring Service
One of the primary issues of this appeal was whether the
Employment Standards Act ("ESA")could support an employee's claim for common law damages.
The respondent worked for the appellant employer for seven years as a spring technician. There was no written employment contract. The respondent was laid off on two occasions. After the first occasion, he was recalled to work only to be laid off again approximately seven weeks later. The cumulative duration of the layoffs exceeded the statutory maximum of 35 weeks within a 52 week-period, as prescribed by s. 56(1)(c) of the ESA. Once the respondent's layoff period reached 35 weeks, he commenced an action for common law damages for wrongful dismissal rather than claiming termination pay under s.54 of the ESA. Holub Deputy J. awarded him $9,900 in damages reflecting a notice period of six months.
On appeal, the employer argued that an employee's employment status survives a statutory termination by the ESA. It argued that the ESA and common law were independent regimes so that upon a statutory termination pursuant to the ESA, the employee was entitled only to remedies under the
Act.
The Court did not agree.
It held that the appellants could not rely on s. 56(1) of the Act, which provides that the employee is terminated "for purposes of section 54". The Court disagreed with the employer's position that the respondent was not terminated for all purposes, but only for the purposes of s. 54. In fact, s. 56(1) prohibits an employer from terminating an employee without notice or payment in lieu of notice. The purpose of s. 54 is to prevent employers from avoiding their liabilities upon termination by pacing employees under a facade of indefinite layoff.
In holding that the ESA provides for the continued application of the common law despite its statutory termination provisions, the Court cited a passage by Iacobucci J. in
Machtinger:
Section 4(2) states that a right, benefit, term or condition of employment under a contract that provides a greater benefit to an employee than the standards set out in the Act. I have no difficulty in concluding that the common law presumption of reasonable notice is a benefit...
The Court considered what would transpire if one accepted that the employee's employment at common law survived the operation s. 56(1). At common law, employers do not have a right to layoff employees. Unless there is an agreement to the contrary, a unilateral layoff by an employer is a substantial change in the employee's employment and is considered to be a constructive dismissal.
Employees are entitled to reasonable notice of termination, regardless of what an employment contract states. In
Machtinger, one of the employees' contracts allowed his termination without notice, and the contract of the other individual allowed his termination on only two weeks notice. The trial judge found that the termination clauses were invalid because they violated the ESA. He held that the employees were entitled to seven and seven and a half months pay in lieu of notice respectively. On appeal, the Court agreed that the termination provisions were invalid, but held that the termination provisions supported the inference that the employees intended to have very short notice periods. The Supreme Court disagreed and stated, "If a term in null and void, then it is null and void for all purposes, and cannot be used as evidence of the parties' intention". Since the employees' contracts failed to address notice requirements, they were entitled to reasonable notice at common law.
The Court rejected the appellant's claim that an implied term in the employment agreement allowed the employer to place the respondent on indefinite layoff exceeding 35 weeks in a 52-week period. The Court noted that since the indefinite layoff provision failed to meet the ESA's minimum standard, it was void. As a consequence, the Court declared that the implied term should not be read down but rather excised from the employment agreement.
R. v. Lalumiere
The appellant was convicted of two counts of counselling to commit murder against his ex-wife and her boyfriend. Prior to the convictions under appeal, the appellant accumulated 23 convictions for offences involving his ex-wife and her boyfriend ranging from uttering threats to criminal harassment. Various violence risk assessment tests conducted on the appellant indicated that he had a 70% likelihood of assaulting his ex-wife at least once in the next five years.
In 2007, the appellant was in jail for uttering threats and for breaching his probation order. During his time in jail, a confidential informant divulged to the police that the appellant desired to hire someone to kill his ex-wife and her boyfriend. On June 14, 2007, a police officer posed as a member of the Hells Angels and met the appellant in the visitor's area of the prison and told him that he understood that the appellant wanted to eradicate two individuals. The undercover officer provided the appellant with his phone number and the appellant was agreeable to the arrangement but he stated that he could not pay the officer until after his release at the end of the year. After failing to hear from the appellant over the ensuing two weeks, the officer returned to the jail and raised the issue once again with the appellant about having the two individuals killed. The appellant agreed to pay the officer $5,000 and later telephoned him to provide personal details about the targeted victims.
At trial, the appellant claimed that he knew all along that the undercover officer's intentions were not legitimate. The appellant asserted that he led the undercover officer on and planned to report him to authorities. Furthermore, prior to the undercover officer's meetings with the appellant, the police obtained a judicial authorization, which permitted the officer to secretly record his conversations with the appellant. Also at trial, the appellant brought an application to exclude the audiotape of the June 27, 2007 telephone conversation under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter. Moreover, the appellant applied to have evidence of his police interview excluded under ss. 10(a), (b) and 24(2) of the Charter. The trial judge found a breach of s.8 but rejected the rest of the appellant's applications.
On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred by failing to exclude the audiotape under s. 24(2) of the Charter, by failing to exclude the evidence of his police interview under ss. 10(a), (b) and 24(2) of the Charter, in his instructions to the jury and in his ruling on entrapment.
Concerning the ss. 8 and 24(2) Charter issue, the Court noted that the trial judge correctly applied the Collins factors in support of his conclusion that the evidence obtained should not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter. Furthermore, the Court stated that the Grant factors favoured admission of the evidence because the undercover officer's evidence concerning his telephone conversations with the appellant was admissible in any event.
In regards to the appellant's ss. 10(a) and 10(b) claims, the Court reviewed the trial transcripts and concluded that the appellant was advised of his 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights and the police offered to assist the appellant in contacting counsel. Further, they asserted that the appellant invited the police to continue speaking with him and he declined to answer specific questions when he felt he should not do so without the benefit of counsel present.
Additionally, the Court found no legal errors in the trial judge's instructions to the jury, holding that the trial judge informed the jury that it was their recollection of the evidence that carried the most weight. More importantly, the jury heard the audiotape of the conversation between the undercover officer and the appellant as well as the appellant's explanation.
On the issue of entrapment, the Court saw no error in the trial judge's pronouncement that the police acted on reasonable suspicion and did no more than provide the appellant the opportunity to commit the crime. Also, they noted that the police were justified in giving credence to the tip received from the confidential informant and that the undercover officers' conduct fell short of inducement.
Poole v. Whirlpool Corporation
The appellant terminated the respondent without cause in early March 2010. The respondent brought a motion and was awarded summary judgment for wrongful dismissal, and the motion judge ruled that the respondent was entitled to a bonus in the amount of $5,598.38 per month during the 19-month notice period determined upon the motion.
The appellants challenged the motion judge's decision that the respondent was entitled to a bonus, her calculation of the bonus and her conclusion that no genuine issue requiring a trial arose concerning the respondent's bonus claim.
The appellants argued that in order to qualify for a bonus under the applicable Bonus Plan, the respondent was required to be actively employed on December 31st of the year for which the bonus was claimed. Since the respondent was terminated in March 2010, he was not eligible for a bonus in 2010 or 2011.
The Court found that the motion judge did not err in her rejection of this position. The Court held that the bonus eligibility stipulation relied on by the appellants was not incorporated in the respondent's letter of employment. Moreover, there was no evidence that the stipulation was drawn to the respondent's attention at any time, whether in writing, orally, by means of the appellants' internal intranet communication system, or that he had ever agreed to it. Furthermore, the Court noted that the appellant's failure to cross- examine the respondent on his affidavit material, in which he swore that he never agreed to the stipulation, precluded any reliance by the appellants on the stipulation to defeat the respondent's bonus claim.
In regards to the motion judge's calculation of the bonus, the Court held that the motion judge was correct in her analysis as to the appropriate method for the bonus calculation. Finally, the Court found that the motion judge did not err in her ruling that no genuine issue requiring a trial arose in regards to the respondent's entitlement to a bonus or the method of calculating the bonus.
In dismissing the appeal, the Court concluded that once it was determined that the respondent was wrongfully terminated, the determination of his bonus was straightforward and based on evidence that was mainly uncontested.
- Alim Ramji, Toronto
