The Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld a lower court’s decision denying a worker’s motion to add three individuals as defendants in her wrongful dismissal suit against 2411363 Ontario Inc., operating as Ontario Health Clinics – Brantford FHO.
The court concluded that the appellant’s claims against the individual respondents were statute-barred under Ontario’s Limitations Act.
In her appeal, T.G. argued that the motion judge erred by ruling she should have known to name the respondents as defendants by the date of her employment termination on June 6, 2018. T.G. contended that she only became aware of her potential claim after a 2021 discovery examination of one of the respondents, J.D., revealing their control over her employment. She sought to establish that the individual respondents were “common employers,” sharing responsibility with the corporate entity, Clinics, for her dismissal.
The motion judge ruled that T.G.’s claim was barred by the two-year limitation period outlined in the Limitations Act, 2002, based on her knowledge of the material facts at the time of her termination. As noted by the appeal court, “a plaintiff need not know the exact act or omission by the defendant that caused the loss but rather must have knowledge of the material facts upon which a ‘plausible inference of liability’ can be drawn.” The motion judge found that T.G. had sufficient knowledge to infer liability against the individual respondents by the time she was terminated.
The Court of Appeal agreed, stating that T.G. knew the individual respondents’ roles in her employment, based on her affidavits that outlined their “management of her workplace and control over her employment.” In denying the appeal, the court emphasized that T.G. had “knowledge of the material facts giving rise to her proposed claim” well within the limitation period.
Additionally, the court dismissed T.G.’s claim that the individual respondents employed corporate structures to evade responsibility, stating that the motion judge correctly noted T.G. was aware of the respondents’ roles irrespective of any corporate veils.
The court also awarded legal costs of $10,000 to each of the three respondents, for a total of $30,000.
For more information, see George v. 2411363 Ontario Inc. (Ontario Health Clinics Brantford FHO Inc.), 2024 ONCA 752 (CanLII).
