Titus v. Cooke (William F.) Enterprises Inc. et al., 2007 ONCA 573

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Judge: Doherty, MacPherson and Cronk, JJ.A.
• Citation: 2007 ONCA 573,(2007), 228 O.A.C. 232 (CA)
• Date: 13 June 2007

Titus v. Cooke Ent. Inc. (2007), 228 O.A.C. 232 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] O.A.C. TBEd. AU.038

Douglas L. Titus (plaintiff/respondent) v. William F. Cooke Enterprises Inc., Wm. F. Cooke Holdings Inc., WFC Holdings Inc., William F. Cooke Television Productions Inc., Designers Patio Inc., William F. Cooke Television Programs and William F. Cooke (defendants/appellants)

(C45093; 2007 ONCA 573)

Indexed As: Titus v. Cooke (William F.) Enterprises Inc. et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Doherty, MacPherson and Cronk, JJ.A.

August 22, 2007.

Summary:

When he was dismissed without cause, the plaintiff received a severance package in exchange for a signed release. The plaintiff then sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal. He argued that the release was unconscionable.

The Ontario Superior Court allowed the action. The employer appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The release barred the plaintiff's action.

Master and Servant - Topic 7607

Dismissal of employees - Defences - Release - Accord and satisfaction - The plaintiff, a senior lawyer with extensive experience in contract and employment law, was in-house counsel for the defendant - He was dismissed after 18 months because of business downsizing - The employer offered the plaintiff a severance package that comprised the statutory two-week termination pay and additional benefits that included a "gratuitous additional lump sum" payment equal to two and one half months of salary - The additional benefits were conditional upon the plaintiff signing a release - The plaintiff immediately signed the release, obtained a cheque and left the employer's premises - He then sued the employer for wrongful dismissal, arguing that the release was unconscionable - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the argument and dismissed the action.

Releases - Topic 3403

Grounds of invalidity - Unconscionability - [See Master and Servant - Topic 7607 ].

Cases Noticed:

Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 701; 219 N.R. 161; 123 Man.R.(2d) 1; 159 W.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 31].

Cain v. Clarica Life Insurance Co. (2005), 384 A.R. 11; 367 W.A.C. 11; 263 D.L.R.(4th) 368 (C.A.), consd. [para. 34].

Black v. Wilcox (1976), 12 O.R.(2d) 759 (C.A.), consd. [para. 37].

Bardal v. Globe and Mail Ltd. (1960), 24 D.L.R.(2d) 140 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Contract in Canada (5th Ed. 2006), p. 320 [para. 36].

Counsel:

Brian P. Bellmore, for the appellants;

R. Brent Raby, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 13, 2007, by Doherty, MacPherson and Cronk, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by MacPherson, J.A., and was released on August 22, 2007.