The Plaintiff was allegedly terminated for cause after an incident involving a service truck (the “Truck”) on a mine site road. The Plaintiff sought Summary Judgment for damages for wrongful dismissal and applied for Summary Dismissal of the Defendants’ Counterclaim. The Defendants asserted just cause and counterclaimed for lost profits due to alleged damage to the Truck.

Both the Claim and the Counterclaim were fairly resolved on the record pursuant to Rules 7.2 and 7.3.

Pursuant to Rule 7.3(1), the Court may grant summary judgment or summary dismissal where a case can be fairly resolved on the existing record without a trial. Applying the summary judgment framework, Kiss J. found that the Plaintiff met the initial burden of demonstrating dismissal without notice or pay in lieu, which is typically sufficient in wrongful dismissal cases to shift the onus to the Defendants to prove their defences.

The Defendants raised two defences: just cause for dismissal and a failure by the Plaintiff to mitigate damages.

On the first defence, the Court found that the Defendants failed to prove just cause. The Plaintiff’s actions did not constitute serious misconduct as driving through water was an accepted practice at the mine site and there was no specific policy prohibiting it. Further, the Defendants failed to follow their own progressive discipline before termination. Lastly, Kiss J. found that the Defendants’ decision to terminate was clearly excessive and not a proportionate response.

On the mitigation defence, the Plaintiff’s limited job search was reasonable in the circumstances, and the Defendants failed to present evidence that an extensive search would have resulted in comparable employment.

The Court then determined whether it was appropriate to summarily determine the Plaintiff’s claim for damages. Justice Kiss found that this could be satisfied by determining the damages in lieu of reasonable notice. In respect of summarily dismissing the Counterclaim for alleged lost profits from damage the Truck, the Court found the Defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence of loss and summarily dismissed their Counterclaim pursuant to Rule 7.3.