Meeting-1

OUR WORK

CIVIL LITIGATION

The Supreme Court of Canada rejected attempts by a construction trade union to shield itself from a wrongful dismissal suit by relying on the Rights of Labour Act after the expiry of a limitation period. The Court was critical of the union’s attempt to tactically avoid litigating the employee’s claim on its merits, and held that the naming of the union in the original statement of claim was a misnomer.

In unusual move, the Court dismissed the union’s appeal from the bench.

Tim Gleason, Sean Dewart and Adrienne Lei represented the respondent employee.

In Grand Financial Management Inc v. Solemio Transportation Inc. the Ontario Court of Appeal dealt with a number of issues, including the tort of interference with economic relations, equitable set-off, damages at large, and the ability of a party to recover damages on a basis not pleaded before trial.  Tim Gleason represented the successful appellant, Solemio Transportation Inc. on the appeal.

A Judge has ruled that allegations that Rob and Doug Ford violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act were made within the applicable limitation period. The Fords had sought to avoid having to defend a proceeding under the Act by bringing a motion to dismiss the claim as untimely. The matter will now proceed, and if a breach of the Act is found, the Fords could be prevented from holding municipal office.

Tim Gleason and Jonathan Schachter successfully argued the first case in Ontario to apply the 10 year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act to a fraudulent conveyance action.

The Toronto District School Board sought an exemption from municipal planning and development regulation in its attempt to lease a school yard to a developer for a private use. Tim Gleason and Sean Dewart represented local residents who were concerned about unchecked development eliminating vital local greenspace. The Divisional Court preserced the City’s right to regulate planning and development.

Tim Gleason and Megan Reid successfully argued an appeal on the doctrine of anticipatory breach, and the Court of Appeal clarified and reconciled conflicting caselaw governing its application in the employment context.