A wrongful dismissal lawsuit against Quality Allied Elevator (QAE) will proceed with all claims intact after a court in Ontario dismissed the employer’s attempt to strike portions of the employee’s statement of claim.
The ruling underscores the legal threshold for striking pleadings and highlights the relevance of workplace environment allegations in wrongful dismissal cases.
The plaintiff, R.C., alleges that QAE wrongfully terminated his employment, discriminated against him under the Human Rights Code, acted in bad faith, and caused intentional mental distress. He is seeking damages for wrongful dismissal equivalent to 14 months’ notice, general damages for discrimination and mental distress, moral damages for the alleged bad faith conduct, and punitive damages for what he claims was malicious treatment by the employer.
QAE maintains that R.C. was terminated for just cause due to wilful misconduct and neglect of duty. The employer brought a motion under Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure to strike two portions of the statement of claim, arguing that they were scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or amounted to evidence rather than material facts.
Employer’s motion to strike pleadings
The impugned portions of the statement of claim contained allegations that extended beyond R.C.’s personal experience at QAE. Specifically, the disputed passages alleged that:
- QAE consistently compromised on safety and service standards, with a serious workplace accident occurring shortly after R.C.’s termination, which resulted in an employee suffering severe injuries due to unsafe practices.
- R.C. was not the only technician who experienced mistreatment by his supervisor, with two other named employees allegedly resigning or facing suspension due to similar workplace issues.
QAE argued that these allegations were irrelevant to R.C.’s wrongful dismissal claim and served only to damage the company’s reputation rather than advancing the legal claims. The company also contended that the pleadings introduced evidence rather than material facts, which would unduly complicate the proceedings.
Court’s analysis and ruling
The court dismissed QAE’s motion, concluding that the disputed pleadings were relevant to the broader workplace environment in which the termination occurred. The judge found that the allegations about workplace safety and mistreatment of other employees were sufficiently connected to R.C.’s claims, including his assertion that his dismissal was retaliatory.
Regarding the workplace accident referenced in the statement of claim, the court noted: “The impugned portion provides specific particulars of an incident which supports an inference that the defendant may have had lax safety standards.” The timing of the incident, occurring shortly after R.C.’s termination, did not render the claim irrelevant.
The court also rejected the argument that the allegations amounted to impermissible evidence rather than material fact. “While the paragraph may have been better worded, this is not an instance where the impugned pleading should be struck on the basis that they plead evidence and not material fact.”
Similarly, allegations that other employees faced mistreatment by the same supervisor were deemed relevant to the claim for punitive damages and the employer’s knowledge of alleged workplace misconduct. The court noted that such claims do not automatically determine the admissibility of similar fact evidence at trial but found no justification for striking them at the pleading stage.
No undue prejudice or delay
The court further held that allowing these pleadings to remain would not unduly delay or prejudice the fair trial of the action. The plaintiff’s allegations were specific and well-defined, providing adequate notice to the defendant without derailing the discovery process. “This is not an instance where the impugned pleadings will derail or sidetrack the discovery process. Moreover, the particulars provided give fair notice to the defendant.”
In addressing costs, the court rejected R.C.’s request for substantial indemnity costs but awarded him $4,000 in legal costs on a partial indemnity basis. This amount was deemed reasonable and proportionate to the issues at stake.
For more information, see Chandrakumar v. Quality Allied Elevator, 2025 ONSC 1528 (CanLII).
