Campsall et al. v. Robbins & Myers Canada Ltd., (1999) 98 O.T.C. 292 (SC)

• Judge: Shaughnessy, J.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: May 27, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1999), 98 O.T.C. 292 (SC)

Campsall v. Robbins & Myers Can. (1999), 98 O.T.C. 292 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] O.T.C. TBEd. JN.127

Gerald Campsall, Gilbert Freedman, Brian Messenger, Jerzy Rossochacki and Keith Wilson (plaintiffs) v. Robbins & Myers Canada Ltd. (defendant)

(39531/96; 40138/96)

Indexed As: Campsall et al. v. Robbins & Myers Canada Ltd.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Shaughnessy, J.

June 10 and July 5, 1999.

Summary:

The plaintiffs were former employees of the defendant company, whose employment was terminated after a corporate downsizing. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant agreed to pay a retention incentive which was a specified payment net of statutory deductions and payable within seven days of termination. The plaintiffs sued the defendant, claiming that the defendant unilaterally changed the agreement between the parties concerning the retention incentive payments by applying statutory deductions from the amount specified rather than being a net payment. The defendant sought an order resolving a question of law as to the meaning of the wording of the termination contract and sought a corresponding dismissal of the plaintiffs' action.

The Ontario Superior Court dismissed the defendant's motion where it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiffs' claim would not succeed or that the allegations in the pleadings raised a question of law which was capable of being disposed of summarily at this point. There were issues of fact and law relating to the intention of the parties as to the terms of the termination of employment contract. These issues could not be decided on a motion under rule 21.01(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Evidence - Topic 6605

Parol evidence rule - Interpretation of a legal act - General principles - Admissibility of parol evidence - On motion for preliminary determination of question of law - See paragraph 31.

Practice - Topic 5262.1

Trials - Trial of preliminary issues - Issues of mixed law and fact - See paragraphs 1 to 35.

Words and Phrases

Net of statutory deductions - The Ontario Superior Court discussed the meaning of this phrase as used in calculating a retention incentive payment pursuant to an employment termination contract - See paragraphs 19 to 35.

Cases Noticed:

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 16].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Air India Flight 182 Disaster Claimants v. Air India (1987), 62 O.R.(2d) 130 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Canadian Union of Public Employees - C.L.C., Ontario Hydro Employees Union, Local 1000 v. Ontario Hydro (1994), 19 O.R.(3d) 529 (Gen. Div.), affd. (1995), 86 O.A.C. 37 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16].

Byrne v. Goodyear Canada Inc. (1981), 33 O.R.(2d) 800 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

Board of Education of Victoria County v. Bradstock, Reicher & Partners Ltd. et al. (1984), 4 O.A.C. 72; 46 O.R.(2d) 674 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 17].

Great West Life v. Minister of National Revenue (1998), 98 D.T.C. 2101, refd to. [para. 22].

Minister of National Revenue v. National Trust (1998), 98 D.T.C. 6409, refd to. [para. 22].

Mint Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue (1998), 229 N.R. 3; 98 D.T.C. 6364 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.), rule 21.01(1)(a), rule 21.01(2)(a), rule 21.02 [para. 15].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Black's Law Dictionary, p. 938 [para. 25].

Fridman, G.H.L., The Law of Contracts in Canada (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 454 [para. 20]; 456 [para. 31].

Funk & Wagnall's Standard College Dictionary (Canadian Edition), p. 908 [para. 25].

Sullivan, Ruth, Driedger on the Meaning of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 8, 9 [para. 20].

Counsel:

Ronald Bohm, for the plaintiffs;

Norma M. Priday, for the defendant.

This case was heard on May 27, 1999, before Shaughnessy, J., of the Ontario Superior Court, who released the following decision on June 10, 1999, followed by an endorsement on costs on July 5, 1999.