In Massoudi v. Vice Media LLC, the Court allowed the appeal of a libel action that had been summarily dismissed under the three-month time bar in the Libel and Slander Act. The Court confirmed that an exclusively online newspaper can be “printed and published in Ontario” under s. 7 even if its server and database is located elsewhere. However, for the strict LSA time limits to apply, the Article must clearly identify the publisher. In this case, the publisher was not identified and was therefore not entitled to rely on the strict LSA time limit for giving notice of the libel.

In Martin v. Mississauga (City), the Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal from the motion judge’s dismissal of her motion to set aside a Settlement Agreement in a wrongful dismissal case.

Wishing everyone an enjoyable weekend.

John Polyzogopoulos
Blaney McMurtry LLP
416.593.2953 Email

Table of Contents

Civil Decisions

Massoudi v. Vice Media LLC, 2026 ONCA 771

Keywords: Torts, Defamation, Libel, Civil Procedure, Limitation Periods, Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12, ss. 6, 7, 8(1), 5(1), Weiss v. Sawyer (2002), 61 O.R. (3d) 526 (C.A.), John v. Ballingall, 2017 ONCA 579, R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc., 2001 SCC 81, Attorney General v. Edison Telephone Co. of London Ltd. (1880), 6 Q.B.D. 244 (Eng. Ex. Div.), British Columbia Telephone Co. v. Canada, [1992] 1 C.T.C. 26 (C.A.), Shtaif v. Toronto Life Publishing Co. Ltd., 2013 ONCA 405, St. Lewis v. Rancourt, 2015 ONCA 513, Haaretz.com v. Goldhar, 2018 SCC 28, Scown v. Herald Publishing Co. (1918), 56 S.C.R. 305, Elliott v. Freisen et al., (1984), 45 O.R. (2d) 285 (C.A.), Hermiston v. Robert Axford Holding Inc. (1994), 21 O.R. (3d) 211 (Div.Ct.), Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33

Martin v. Mississauga (City), 2026 ONCA 753 

Keywords: Contracts, Employment, Wrongful Dismissal, Civil Procedure, Settlement Agreements, Setting Aside, Appeals, Fresh Evidence, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 59.06

Short Civil Decisions

124020 Ontario Limited v. Hike Metal Products Limited, 2026 ONCA 772

Keywords: Civil Procedure, Settlement Agreement, Summary Judgment

Cho v. Hui, 2026 ONCA 774

Keywords: Family law, Spousal Support, Property, Remedies, Equalization of Net Family Property, Civil Procedure, Settlements, Enforcement, Appeals, Fresh Evidence

Sidhu v. Kaur, 2026 ONCA 777

Keywords: Family Law, Marriage, Validity, Divorce, Property, Remedies, Equalization of Net Family Property, Civil Procedure, Expert Evidence, Marriage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.3, s.31

Vieraitis v. Advanced Grain Handling Systems Inc., 2026 ONCA 776

Keywords: Civil Procedure, Judgments, Enforcement, Payment into Court, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Orders, Final or Interlocutory, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, s. 136(2)(b), Hendrickson v. Kallio, [1932] O.R. 675 (C.A.), Drywall Acoustic Lathing Insulation Local 675 Pension Fund v. SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., 2020 ONCA 375

Ghazvini v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2026 ONCA 766

Keywords: Contracts, Interpretation, Employment, Termination, Wrongful Dismissal, Just Cause, Reasonable Notice, Damages, Mitigation, Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, ss. 229.1, 230(1), Waksdale v. Swegon North America Inc., 2020 ONCA 391, McKinley v. BC Tel, 2001 SCC 38, Baker v. Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc., 2026 ONCA 568, Horwitz v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2019 ONSC 7583, Rossman v. Canadian Solar Inc., 2019 ONCA 992, Matthews v. Ocean Nutrition Canada Ltd., 2020 SCC 26, David Harris, Wrongful Dismissal (Toronto: Thomson Reuters Canada Limited, 2025

Sui v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2026 ONCA 768

Keywords: Civil Procedure, Vexatious Litigation, Frivolous, Vexatious, Abuse of Process, Appeals, Perfection, Extension of Time, Stay Pending Appeal, Orders, Nunc Pro Tunc, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 140(4)(e), Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, O. Reg. 322/24, Rules of Civil Procedure, rr. 2.1, 2.2, Kokic v. Johnson, 2025 ONCA 4, Hart v. Fullarton, 2021 ONCA 438, Chavali v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2007 ONCA 482, Damallie v. Ping, 2016 ONCA 603

Xing v. Lai, 2026 ONCA 769

Keywords: Family Law, Real Property, Matrimonial Home, Remedies, Partition and Sale, Civil Procedure, Orders, Enforcement, Collateral Attack, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Final or Interlocutory, Extension of Time, Stay Pending Appeal, Panel Review, Partition Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.4, Duffy v. Duffy, 2025 ONCA 507

Kibalian v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 ONCA 770

Keywords: Income Tax, Civil Procedure, Vexatious Litigation, Frivolous, Vexatious, Abuse of Process, Appeals, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 2.1

Whitby (Town) v. Barnes, 2026 ONCA 756

Keywords: Municipal Law, Provincial Offences, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Leave to Appeal, Motions, Abandonment, Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, ss. 131(1), (3), Fort Erie (Town) v. 2312810 Ontario Inc., 2021 ONCA 500

Newell v. Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company, 2026 ONCA 757

Keywords: Wills and Estates, Powers of Attorney, Family Law, Support, Civil Procedure, Orders, Payment of Money, Enforcement, Family Responsibility Office, Contempt, Priorities, Striking Pleadings, Abuse of Process, Collateral Attack, Limitation Periods, Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 60.11

Abada v. University of Ottawa, 2026 ONCA 760

Keywords: Education, Breach of Contract, Torts, Negligence, Intentional Torts, Civil Procedure, Trials, Procedural and Natural Justice, Evidence, Witnesses, Credibility, Gauthier c. Saint-Germain, 2010 ONCA 309, R. v. Samaniego, 2022 SCC 9

2551965 Ontario Ltd. v. Warkentin, 2026 ONCA 763

Keywords: Contracts, Employment, Termination, Wrongful Dismissal, Defences, Just Cause, Condonation, Culminating Incident Doctrine, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Hucsko v. A.O. Smith Enterprises Ltd., 2021 ONCA 728

CIVIL DECISIONS

Massoudi v. Vice Media LLC, 2026 ONCA 771

[Fairburn A.C.J.O., Zarnett, and Gomery JJ.A.]

Counsel:

P.A. Downard and M. Memmel, for the appellant

K. Sonshine, D.F. Best and M. Gora, for the respondents

Keywords: Torts, Defamation, Libel, Civil Procedure, Limitation Periods, Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12, ss. 6, 7, 8(1), 5(1), Weiss v. Sawyer (2002), 61 O.R. (3d) 526 (C.A.), John v. Ballingall, 2017 ONCA 579, R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc., 2001 SCC 81, Attorney General v. Edison Telephone Co. of London Ltd. (1880), 6 Q.B.D. 244 (Eng. Ex. Div.), British Columbia Telephone Co. v. Canada, [1992] 1 C.T.C. 26 (C.A.), Shtaif v. Toronto Life Publishing Co. Ltd., 2013 ONCA 405, St. Lewis v. Rancourt, 2015 ONCA 513, Haaretz.com v. Goldhar, 2018 SCC 28, Scown v. Herald Publishing Co. (1918), 56 S.C.R. 305, Elliott v. Freisen et al., (1984), 45 O.R. (2d) 285 (C.A.), Hermiston v. Robert Axford Holding Inc. (1994), 21 O.R. (3d) 211 (Div.Ct.), Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33

facts:

On November 5, 2013, the respondent, P.G., posted an article on VICE.com titled “Rob Ford’s Office Hired a Hacker to Destroy the Crack Tape” (the “Article”). The Article identified the appellant as being one of the staff members who hired the alleged hacker.

Hours after the Article was published, the appellant emailed P.G. and the editor in chief of Vice Media Inc., putting them on notice that its content was defamatory and false and said that he might need to consult a lawyer with respect to his legal remedies for the damages he would suffer because of the Article’s publication. Despite the appellant’s email, the Article remained posted on the VICE website. On March 14, 2014, the appellant sued for defamation four months after the Article was published.

In October 2017, the respondents advised the appellant that they intended to amend their statement of defence to plead that his action was time-barred under the Libel and Slander Act (the “LSA”). They brought their motion for summary judgment on August 31, 2022.

Sections 5(1) and 6 of the LSA require a person alleging libel in a newspaper to give notice to the defendant. Both notice of and any action for the libel must be given within short deadlines, failing which an action in libel may be struck. However, pursuant to s. 7, ss. 5 and 6 only apply to newspapers printed and published in Ontario and broadcasts from a station in Ontario. Furthermore, pursuant to s. 8(1), the names of the proprietor and publisher and the address of publication must be stated either at the head of the editorials or on the front page of the newspaper for ss. 5 and 6 to apply.

The motion judge concluded that the requirements in ss. 7 and 8 of the LSA had been met and that the appellant’s action in libel was statute-barred, as he was required to have commenced his action by February 5, 2014.

The motion judge found that s. 7 was met because P.G. was based in Toronto, the Article’s subject matter were political events in Toronto, its readership was primarily in Ontario, and the appellant claimed that he suffered damages in Ontario.

The motion judge found that s. 8 was substantially complied with, as “it was clear that Vice Canada was the publisher”, as the Canadian editorial leadership, their email addresses, and a Toronto office address was listed on the masthead on an “About Us” webpage linked to the Article.

issues:

1. Did the motion judge err in interpreting and applying s. 7 of the LSA?

a. Did the motion judge err in finding that the Article was printed and published in Ontario?

b. Did the motion judge misdirect her inquiry by focusing on where the Article was published?

2. Did the motion judge err in interpreting and applying s. 8 of the LSA?

holding:

Appeal allowed.

reasoning:

1. No.

a. No.

The appellant argued that the Article was printed in Virginia because where a newspaper is published exclusively online, the court must look to the location where the data generating the online content is housed.

The Court rejected this argument, relying on Weiss v. Sawyer and John v. Ballingall in finding that s. 7 should be interpreted to reflect the reality of how most media today is created and consumed. In Weiss, the Court considered the purpose and scheme of the LSA and concluded that “the purpose and scheme of the notice provision in the Libel and Slander Act are to extend its benefits to those who are sued in respect of a libel in a newspaper irrespective of the method or technique of publication”. The Court in John endorsed the conclusion in Weiss and cited instances where courts have interpreted legislation to apply to new technologies that did not exist when it was enacted.

The Court distinguished the cautionary language used by the Court in Shtaif v. Toronto Life Publishing Co. Ltd. about the LSA’s application to internet publications. Shtaif involved a determination of complex and interrelated questions of discoverability, whereas the issue on appeal was far narrower and straightforward.

The Court provided a non-exhaustive list of factors relevant to showing the place where exclusively online content was published (and therefore printed), including, where the content was created, who created it and in what capacity, the location of the publisher and proprietor of the online content, the content’s target audience and subject matter, any indication on the website about the place of publication or printing, and the location of persons who accessed and read the content. The Court found no error of law or principle in the motion judge’s conclusion on weighing the factors.

b. No.

The appellant argued that the motion judge mistakenly focused exclusively on whether the Article was published in Ontario and that she should have instead asked whether the “Vice Canada” newspaper was published in this province. The Court found that the motion judge’s framing of the question was reasonable in the circumstances.

2. Yes.

The Court found that the motion judge mistakenly found that the respondents’ non-compliance with the key requirement of s. 8(1), the posting of the name and location of the publisher/owner of Vice Canada, was unproblematic so long as the appellant received adequate notice of their identity by some means. Vice Media Canada Inc., which the motion judge found to be the publisher and proprietor, appeared nowhere, and the name of a different person was instead listed as the publisher. It is only if the publisher and proprietor are one and the same that it would suffice to identify them only once.

The content of the Article neither identified Vice Canada as the publisher nor implied that it was being published by a company distinct from a U.S. parent. Based on the evidence, the appellant did not realize that Vice Canada Media Ltd. was a company separate from Vice Global or that Vice Canada Media Inc. published the article.

Additionally, caselaw establishes that, although a failure to comply with every technical requirement of s. 8(1) may not strip a defendant of the protection of ss. 5 and 6 of the LSA, a defendant newspaper must show at least partial compliance or an attempt to comply. The Court found that the respondents failed to substantially comply with s. 8(1) because the critical information required for effective notice was entirely absent. The appeal was therefore allowed on this ground.

Martin v. Mississauga (City), 2026 ONCA 753 

[Coroza, Dawe, and Brownstone JJ.A.]

Counsel:

A.M., acting in person

T. Gorsky and N. Zervoudakis, for the respondents

Keywords: Contracts, Employment, Wrongful Dismissal, Civil Procedure, Settlement Agreements, Setting Aside, Appeals, Fresh Evidence, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 59.06

facts:

The appellant, A.M., sued her former employer, the respondent City of Mississauga (“City”) for wrongful dismissal and various torts. In its original defence, the City alleged the appellant was dismissed for just cause because of improper disclosure related to an investigation of other city employees. Although A.M. initially retained counsel, she became self-represented.

On March 14, 2024, the parties, and the appellant’s former law firm, entered into a Settlement Agreement. The appellant later moved pursuant to r. 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside the Settlement Agreement. She also sought declarations that the respondent City breached the agreement, made fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations during its negotiations and enforcement, and acted in bad faith and abused the court’s process. She also sought an order permitting her underlying action against the respondents to continue.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding that the parties had entered into a valid and binding settlement. She concluded that the appellant sought to relitigate issues that she had either already litigated or had the opportunity to litigate. The motion judge further found that the appellant had failed to establish any basis for setting aside the Settlement Agreement and determined that she had entered into the agreement knowingly and voluntarily. She also found no evidence that the respondents had taken advantage of the appellant and found no evidence of unconscionability, fraud, misrepresentation, misapprehension of material fact, or any other ground that would invalidate the agreement. The appellant appealed and brought a motion to admit fresh evidence.

issues:

1. Did the motion judge fail to properly consider the appellant’s claim of duress?

2. Did the motion judge treat the appellant’s allegations of fraud and obstruction by the respondent City in a problematic way?

3. Did the motion judge err by accepting the respondents’ submission that the appellant unreasonably delayed in bringing her r. 59.06 motion, which was brought approximately one year after executing the Settlement Agreement, and finding that the motion should be dismissed on that basis?

4. Should the appellant’s motion to admit fresh evidence on appeal be allowed?

holding:

Appeal and motion dismissed.

reasoning:

1. No.

The Court held that there was no error in the motion judge’s treatment of this issue.

The appellant argued that when she signed the Settlement Agreement, she faced a charging order from her former counsel, feared a substantial cost award against her if she refused to settle, and lacked sufficient time to obtain independent legal advice. The motion judge expressly considered the appellant’s duress arguments and found that no evidence showed that anyone had subjected the appellant to illegitimate pressure to sign the Settlement Agreement. The appellant’s claim of duress was a “bald assertion” and the motion judge concluded that the issue of costs was a reality of litigation and there was nothing in the evidence that suggested anything other than the ordinary stress felt by a litigant. The appellant failed to establish that the agreement should be set aside for this reason.

2. No.

The Court found no error in the motion judge’s treatment of the evidence regarding fraud and obstruction and no basis to interfere with her conclusions or findings.

The appellant claimed that the City failed to make full disclosure and during the litigation misrepresented the end date of the police investigation into her conduct. The motion judge found that any discrepancies raised by the appellant were not material to the Settlement Agreement reached between the parties, and the Court agreed with the motion judge’s conclusions. She found the appellant knew of the alleged discrepancies when she entered into the Settlement Agreement, raised the alleged discrepancies on a motion she brought previously, and nevertheless chose to settle rather than continue the litigation.

3. No.

The Court found it unnecessary to address this submission. The motion judge made this finding in the alternative, and the Court disposed of the appeal without considering the appellant’s challenge to it. The Court highlighted, however, that nothing in its reasons should be taken as endorsing the motion judge’s brief conclusion that delay provided an independent basis to dismiss the motion.

4. No.

The appellant sought to admit fresh evidence on appeal, particularly a letter that she received from a lawyer with whom she consulted before signing the Settlement Agreement. The Court found that the proposed evidence did not satisfy the test for admission of fresh evidence. First, the Court did not find the letter to be cogent evidence. The lawyer who authored the letter did not personally speak with the appellant. Rather, the author obtained information from the lawyer who had spoken with the appellant. The letter reflected information and belief rather than first-hand knowledge. Second, the proposed evidence could not have affected the result. The motion judge did not base her decision on a finding that the appellant had received independent legal advice. The motion judge focused on the appellant’s understanding that, by entering into the Settlement Agreement, she would bring her lawsuit to an end.

SHORT CIVIL DECISIONS

124020 Ontario Limited v. Hike Metal Products Limited, 2026 ONCA 772

[Lauwers, Rahman, and Brownstone JJ.A.]

Counsel:

M. Watson, for the appellant

P.W. Kryworuk and D. Boswell, for the respondents

Keywords: Civil Procedure, Settlement Agreement, Summary Judgment

Cho v. Hui, 2026 ONCA 774

[Huscroft, Miller, and Sossin JJ.A.]

Counsel:

C. Hu, for the appellant/moving party

D. Walker, for the respondent/responding party

Keywords: Family law, Spousal Support, Property, Remedies, Equalization of Net Family Property, Civil Procedure, Settlements, Enforcement, Appeals, Fresh Evidence

Sidhu v. Kaur, 2026 ONCA 777

[Roberts, Favreau, and Copeland JJ.A.]

Counsel:

B.T. Paquette, for the appellant

M.T. Kelly for the respondent

Keywords: Family Law, Marriage, Validity, Divorce, Property, Remedies, Equalization of Net Family Property, Civil Procedure, Expert Evidence, Marriage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.3, s.31

Vieraitis v. Advanced Grain Handling Systems Inc., 2026 ONCA 776

[Roberts, Favreau, Copeland JJ.A.]

Counsel:

J.V., acting in person

M.A. Jaeger, for the respondents

Keywords: Civil Procedure, Judgments, Enforcement, Payment into Court, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Orders, Final or Interlocutory, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, s. 136(2)(b), Hendrickson v. Kallio, [1932] O.R. 675 (C.A.), Drywall Acoustic Lathing Insulation Local 675 Pension Fund v. SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., 2020 ONCA 375

Ghazvini v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2026 ONCA 766

[Huscroft, Dawe, and Brownstone JJ.A.]

Counsel:

F. Cesario, E.J. O’Dwyer, and K. Brennan, for the appellant

B. Hahn, M.W. Kitay, A. Zaltzman, and M. Lopes, for the respondents

Keywords: Contracts, Interpretation, Employment, Termination, Wrongful Dismissal, Just Cause, Reasonable Notice, Damages, Mitigation, Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, ss. 229.1, 230(1), Waksdale v. Swegon North America Inc., 2020 ONCA 391, McKinley v. BC Tel, 2001 SCC 38, Baker v. Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc., 2026 ONCA 568, Horwitz v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2019 ONSC 7583, Rossman v. Canadian Solar Inc., 2019 ONCA 992, Matthews v. Ocean Nutrition Canada Ltd., 2020 SCC 26, David Harris, Wrongful Dismissal (Toronto: Thomson Reuters Canada Limited, 2025)

Sui v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2026 ONCA 768

[Coroza, Gomery, and Osborne JJ.A.]

Counsel:

H.S., acting in person

M. Sims and T. Ahluwalia, for the respondents the Attorney General of Ontario and His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario

D. Westcott, for the respondent The Corporation of the City of Toronto

Keywords: Civil Procedure, Vexatious Litigation, Frivolous, Vexatious, Abuse of Process, Appeals, Perfection, Extension of Time, Stay Pending Appeal, Orders, Nunc Pro Tunc, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 140(4)(e), Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, O. Reg. 322/24, Rules of Civil Procedure, rr. 2.1, 2.2, Kokic v. Johnson, 2025 ONCA 4, Hart v. Fullarton, 2021 ONCA 438, Chavali v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2007 ONCA 482, Damallie v. Ping, 2016 ONCA 603

Xing v. Lai, 2026 ONCA 769

[George, Favreau, and Myers JJ.A.]

Counsel:

Y.Y.L., acting in person

C.C. Ma, for the respondent

Keywords: Family Law, Real Property, Matrimonial Home, Remedies, Partition and Sale, Civil Procedure, Orders, Enforcement, Collateral Attack, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Final or Interlocutory, Extension of Time, Stay Pending Appeal, Panel Review, Partition Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.4, Duffy v. Duffy, 2025 ONCA 507

Kibalian v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 ONCA 770

[Roberts, Favreau, and Copeland JJ.A.]

Counsel:

Y.K., acting in person

W. Linden and D. Bourchier, for the respondents the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of National Revenue

T. Moffat, for the respondent the Attorney General of Ontario

Keywords: Income Tax, Civil Procedure, Vexatious Litigation, Frivolous, Vexatious, Abuse of Process, Appeals, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 2.1

Whitby (Town) v. Barnes, 2026 ONCA 756

[Paciocco, Thorburn, and Monahan JJ.A.]

Counsel:

S.B., acting in person

K. Shedden, agent for B. Harasym, for the respondent

Keywords: Municipal Law, Provincial Offences, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Leave to Appeal, Motions, Abandonment, Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, ss. 131(1), (3), Fort Erie (Town) v. 2312810 Ontario Inc., 2021 ONCA 500

Newell v. Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company, 2026 ONCA 757

[Coroza, Gomery, and Osborne JJ.A.]

Counsel:

D.G.N., acting in person

N. Fainman-Adelman, for the respondent

Keywords: Wills and Estates, Powers of Attorney, Family Law, Support, Civil Procedure, Orders, Payment of Money, Enforcement, Family Responsibility Office, Contempt, Priorities, Striking Pleadings, Abuse of Process, Collateral Attack, Limitation Periods, Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 60.11

Abada v. University of Ottawa, 2026 ONCA 760

[Rouleau, Coroza, and Osborne JJ.A.]

Counsel:

A.A., acting in person

J. Macdonald and M. Heinke, for the respondents

Keywords: Education, Breach of Contract, Torts, Negligence, Intentional Torts, Civil Procedure, Trials, Procedural and Natural Justice, Evidence, Witnesses, Credibility, Gauthier c. Saint-Germain, 2010 ONCA 309, R. v. Samaniego, 2022 SCC 9

2551965 Ontario Ltd. v. Warkentin, 2026 ONCA 763

[Coroza, Gomery, and Osborne JJ.A.]

Counsel:

H. Markowitz, for the appellant

S. French, N. Nicholson, and C. Miller, for the respondents

Keywords: Contracts, Employment, Termination, Wrongful Dismissal, Defences, Just Cause, Condonation, Culminating Incident Doctrine, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Hucsko v. A.O. Smith Enterprises Ltd., 2021 ONCA 728

The information contained in our summaries of the decisions is not intended to provide legal advice and does not necessarily cover every matter raised in a decision. For complete information or for specific advice, please read the decision or contact us.