Paquette v. TeraGo Networks Inc., 2016 ONCA 618

• Judge: Simmons, Pepall and van Rensburg, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: February 12, 2016
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: 2016 ONCA 618;(2016), 352 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

Paquette v. TeraGo Networks Inc. (2016), 352 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] O.A.C. TBEd. AU.007

Trevor Paquette (plaintiff/appellant) v. TeraGo Networks Inc. (defendant/respondent)

(C60757; 2016 ONCA 618)

Indexed As: Paquette v. TeraGo Networks Inc.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Simmons, Pepall and van Rensburg, JJ.A.

August 9, 2016.

Summary:

Paquette worked for TeraGo from 2000 until his employment was terminated without cause in November 2014. Paquette sued for damages for wrongful dismissal. Paquette moved for summary judgment to determine the period of reasonable notice and damages, including the issues of compensation for lost bonuses and mitigation of damages. TeraGo agreed that the issues were appropriate for summary judgment.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision with neutral citation 2015 ONSC 4189, fixed the reasonable notice period at 17 months and awarded damages based on the salary and benefits that Paquette would have received during the notice period. The court denied the claim for damages for lost bonus payments on the basis that the bonus plan required the bonus recipient to be "actively employed" at the time that the bonus was paid. The court found that Paquette had made reasonable efforts to mitigate his damages and directed him to account for any mitigation earnings for the balance of the reasonable notice period, with such earnings subject to a trust in favour of TeraGo. Paquette appealed, asserting that the court erred in denying his claim for compensation for lost bonuses.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The motion judge erred in principle by focusing too narrowly on the question of whether "active employment" was ambiguous. The question in this case was not whether the bonus plan was ambiguous, but whether the wording of the plan (which formed part of employment contract) was effective to limit Paquette's right to receive compensation for lost salary and bonuses during the reasonable notice period. A term that required active employment when the bonus was paid, without more, was insufficient to deprive an employee terminated without reasonable notice of a claim for compensation for the bonus that the employee would have received during the notice period as part of his or her wrongful dismissal damages. The court fixed Paquette's additional damages based on the average of the bonuses that he received in 2011, 2012 and 2013.

Master and Servant - Topic 194

Remuneration - Bonuses - Calculation of - See paragraph 49.

Master and Servant - Topic 1912

Remuneration - Bonuses - Entitlement - See paragraphs 15 to 49.

Counsel:

Andrew H. Monkhouse and Samantha Lucifora, for the appellant;

Robert Frank and Nicole Marcus, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 12, 2016, by Simmons, Pepall and van Rensburg, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. van Rensburg, J.A., released the following judgment for the court on August 9, 2016.