Digest: Van Ginkel v Aon Reed Stenhouse Inc., 2018 SKQB 223

DateAugust 18, 2019

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 223

Docket Number: QB18227 , QBG 1020/13 JCR

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2019-08-18


  • Leurer


  • Employment Law � Contract � Interpretation
  • Employment Law � Breach of Contract � Restrictive Covenant
  • Civil Procedure � Queen�s Bench Rules, Rule 7-5

Digest: The plaintiff brought an action against his former employer, the defendant AON Reed Stenhouse, for unpaid commission owed to him under the terms of an employment contract. AON counterclaimed, alleging the plaintiff breached the non-competition clause in the contract. The plaintiff applied for summary judgment: a) in the amount of his claim; and b) dismissing AON�s counterclaim. AON had approached the plaintiff about becoming an employee in a new position created so that he would work with other AON employees to create strategies to secure new business and to mentor other employees to assist them in expanding their individual sales portfolios. The evidence tendered by the plaintiff to support his claim for commission was contained in an email from a senior executive of AON that stated that it would pay him 25 percent of new revenue. The written agreement prepared by AON provided that the plaintiff was eligible to participate in an incentive compensation plan, details of which would be provided when the plaintiff commenced employment. The terms of the compensation plan differed from the 25 percent commission arrangement described in the emails and the details of the plan were not given to the plaintiff when he went to work for AON.
HELD: The plaintiff�s application for summary judgment was granted. He was given judgment in the amount of $75,750, representing his 25 percent commission. The court found that the plaintiff�s evidence was unchallenged, that he and their executive had reached an agreement in their emails regarding his commission and that he had not been informed regarding AON�s incentive plan. Similarly, there was uncontradicted evidence that supported the role played by the plaintiff in obtaining the sale for which he claimed his commission in damages. The court dismissed the plaintiff�s application to dismiss AON�s counterclaim because there was a contentious issue, turning on issues of credibility, as to whether the plaintiff breached clauses in his contract. The court found that there was a triable issue with respect to the counterclaim, but that did not prevent it from granting summary judgment on the

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT