An Ontario court has allowed a wrongful dismissal claim involving a former truck driver and his company to proceed, despite significant procedural delays.
The plaintiffs, G.U. and G. Uzelac Trucking, allege they were wrongfully terminated by Dufferin Aggregates, a division of CRH Canada Group Inc. (CRH), and Aggregate Transfer Systems (ATS) in May 2017.
They claim age discrimination under Ontario’s Human Rights Code and failure to receive statutory entitlements under the Employment Standards Act, 2000. The defendants sought dismissal of the action due to delay, arguing they would suffer prejudice if the case continued.
Delays on both sides
The court found that while the plaintiffs bore responsibility for some of the delays, including failure to schedule discoveries in a timely manner and missing deadlines for mediation, the defendants also contributed to the delay through multiple changes in legal representation, shifting positions on mediation, and resistance to setting a timetable.
“The progress of this action has not been ideal, and there have been material periods of delay attributable to the plaintiffs,” the court stated. However, it concluded that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a sufficient intention to move the action forward and that the delays did not cause non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.
The case began in June 2017, when the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants stopped scheduling them for work, effectively terminating their employment. G.U. had initially worked as an employee for CRH from 1962 to 2000, when he was required to retire at age 65 due to union membership rules. He then continued providing trucking services through ATS until 2017. The plaintiffs claimed $417,500 in damages, including $312,500 for wrongful dismissal and $100,000 for violations of the Human Rights Code.
Litigation was slow to progress. After pleadings closed in mid-2017, the parties disagreed over whether to mediate before or after examinations for discovery. The defendants initially refused to mediate early, later changed their position, and then refused again. ATS changed lawyers twice before ultimately deciding not to defend the action, while CRH changed legal counsel five times over the course of proceedings. Examinations for discovery were scheduled but repeatedly postponed, with the plaintiffs failing to take active steps to reschedule until 2020.
‘Acceptable’ explanation for delay
The court considered whether the plaintiffs had provided an acceptable explanation for the delay and whether allowing the case to continue would unfairly prejudice the defendants. “Acceptable does not mean that the explanation must be ‘good,’ only ‘adequate’ or ‘passable’ and ‘cogent,'” the court noted. It found that while there were internal file management issues at the plaintiffs’ law firm, including staff turnover and supervision lapses, there was no evidence of deliberate inaction.
The defendants argued they would be prejudiced because two key witnesses had since left CRH, and their whereabouts were unknown. However, the court rejected this argument, noting that the plaintiffs had located both witnesses on LinkedIn and that CRH had not demonstrated any effort to contact them. It also found that the extensive discovery process reduced the risk of faded memories or lost evidence. “There is no evidence that this was done, and I reject their departures as a basis for prejudice,” the court stated.
Ultimately, the court ruled in favour of extending the timeline for trial, citing the plaintiffs’ demonstrated intent to advance the case, the defendants’ role in procedural delays, and the absence of significant prejudice. It ordered a new litigation timetable, requiring the parties to complete outstanding steps, including mediation and trial scheduling, within specific deadlines.
For more information, see Uzelac v. Dufferin Aggregates, a division of CRH Canada Group Inc., 2025 ONSC 896 (CanLII).
