Tort Claims
Ontario Court of Appeal recognizes tort of invasion of personal privacy in case involving two BMO employees
In a decision issued on January 18, 2012 - Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32 - the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized the tort of invasion of personal privacy in case involving two BMO employees.
The court then awarded $10,000 in damages to the employee whose privacy has been breached.
For more background on this case, see my May 9, 2011 post here: "Ontario Court of Appeal to consider tort of invasion of privacy in work context case".
Entire agreement clause prohibits former CEO's claims for collateral agreement and negligent misrepresentation
In McNeely v. Herbal Magic Inc., 2011 ONSC 4237 the court ruled that an "entire agreement" clause in the employment contract (and in another agreement) was fatal to a former president and CEO's claim for damages for breach of a collateral agreement and for negligent misrepresentation against the company that he used to work for and that had terminated his employment.
The tort of "inducing breach of contract" vs. the tort of "intentional interference with contractual relations"
What is the difference between the tort of "inducing breach of contract" as to the tort of "intentional interference with contractual relations"?
This question was addressed recently by Nikolay Chsherbinin in an article he wrote entitled, "When employees cross the street".
The article was published in the summer 2011 edition of the Canadian Corporate Counsel Association magazine. Mr. Chsherbinin is a lawyer at Grosman, Grosman & Gale LLP in Toronto. The firm's website states that he is currently working on his first legal book, The Law of Inducement in Canadian Employment Law.
As set out in the article, the scope, elements and rationale of each tort are different:
Tort of inducing breach of contract
The "new" employer must have intended to and actually procured a breach of the employee's contract with the "old" employer. That is, the new employer persuades an employee to breach his employment contract with his old employer.
Tort of intentional interference with contractual relations read more »
BC Court of Appeal dismisses appeal in forestry employee's negligent misrepresentation, wrongful dismissal case
Lesage v. Canadian Forest Products Ltd., 2011 BCCA 259
My summary of the trial judge's decision can be found here.
Ontario Court of Appeal to consider tort of invasion of privacy in work context case
The Law Times ran a story ("Appeal court to consider privacy tort") today on the decision in Jones v. Tsige, 2011 ONSC 1475.
It is a case concerning two employees of the Bank of Montreal who worked at different branches. Over the course of four years, one employee (the "Defendant") accessed the personal banking information of the other employee, who was also a customer of the bank (the "Plaintiff"), on 176 occasions.
Rather than filing a complaint with the federal privacy commissioner under PIPEDA, and ultimately going to the federal court for recourse, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant for the common law tort of invasion of privacy.
In its decision issued on March 23, 2011, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, citing precedent, ruled that there is no tort of invasion of privacy in Ontario.
The Ontario Court of Appeal will now have an opportunity to weigh in on this issue. read more »
“'I’m Being Sued For What?!' Deconstructing the Different Damages in an Employee’s Statement of Claim"
Genny Na and Naomi E. Calla, lawyers at Borden Ladner Gervais in Toronto, have prepared a paper entitled, “I’m Being Sued For What?!” Deconstructing the Different Damages in an Employee’s Statement of Claim".
The paper was written for the firm's 13th Annual Labour & Employment Group Symposium held on November 4, 2010.
The authors have attached to the paper an extremely useful, and comprehensive, chart that lists court decisions in Canada from 1984-2010 where "excess damages" (aggravated, bad faith, punitive, etc.) have been awarded.
Supervisor's defamatory appraisal of dismissed employee protected by qualified privilege
In Dawydiuk v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2010 BCCA 353, the BC Court of Appeal addressed whether the contents of an email written by a dismissed employee's supervisor were defamatory and , if so, whether they were protected by the defence of qualified privilege.
Background
Ms. Dawydiuk began her employment with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia ("ICBC") in 1988 as a clerk. At the time of her dismissal in 2004, she was 38 years-old and in a managerial position.
Ms. Dawydiuk had been off work since June 2003, first on a sick leave and then on a maternity/parental leave. She was scheduled to return to work on October 4, 2004.
On July 5, 2004, while still on leave, Ms.Dawydiuk was phoned by her supervisor and advised of a restructuring that had resulted in her position being eliminated. Her supervisor advised her of two other available managerial positions, however, and asked her to let him know which one she would like. read more »
