ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE MICHAEL MOSEY. - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO (ONTARIO MINISTRY OF LABOUR) STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Transcription

1 Court File No.: ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: MICHAEL MOSEY Plaintiff - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO (ONTARIO MINISTRY OF LABOUR) Defendant STATEMENT OF CLAIM TO THE DEFENDANT: A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the Plaintiff. The claim made against you is set out in the following pages. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer acting for you must prepare a Statement of Defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the Plaintiff s lawyer, or where the Plaintiff does not have a lawyer, serve it on the Plaintiff and file it, with proof of service, in this Court office, WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this Statement of Claim is served on you, if you are served in Ontario. If you are served in another Province or Territory of Canada or in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing your Statement of Defence is forty days. If you are served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is sixty days. Instead of serving and filing a Statement of Defence, you may serve and file a Notice of Intent to Defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will entitle you to ten more days within which to file your Statement of Defence.

2 - 2 - IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT ARE UNABLE TO PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTRACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE. Date: Issued By: Local Registrar Address of the Court Office: 150 Bond Street East Oshawa Ontario L1G 0A2 TO: ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ONTARIO CIVIL LAW BRANCH 8TH FLOOR 720 BAY ST TORONTO, ONTARIO M7A 2S9

3 - 3 - THIS ACTION IS BROUGHT AGAINST YOU UNDER THE SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE PROVIDED IN RULE 76 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. CLAIM 1. The Plaintiff claims against the Defendant the following: (a) Damages in the amount of $104,000; (b) pre- and post-judgment interest in accordance with the provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, as amended; (c) costs of this action on a substantial indemnity basis, together with applicable Harmonized Sales Tax, payable pursuant to the provisions of the Excise Tax Act, R.S., 1985, c. E-15, as amended; and, (d) such further and other relief as may seem fair and just to this Honourable Court. THE PARTIES 2. The Plaintiff, Michael Mosey ( Michael ), is an individual residing in the City of Bowmanville, in the Province of Ontario. 3. The Defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (Ontario Ministry of Labour) ( MOL ), is a branch of the Provincial Government for Ontario with a mandate to develop and enforce employment and labour laws in the Province, including but not limited to the Employment Standards Act 2000, S.O. 2000, Chapter 41 ( Act ). BACKGROUND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES 4. Michael commenced his employment with Trillium Screw Mfg. Co. Ltd. ( Trillium ) on June 4, He worked at a facility located in Pickering, Ontario. 5. At all material times, Michael held a senior position of product manager at Trillium. His duties included the purchasing of raw materials, tooling and finished products, as well as managing production costs and the customer service/order

4 - 4 - desk. Michael held this position until his employment was terminated by Trillium on or about June 8, Michael s annual package of remuneration from Trillium included the following: (a) base salary of $50,100; (b) a full suite of group benefits, including medical, dental, vision care, life insurance, health care spending account, accidental death and dismemberment insurance, and long term disability; and, (c) four (4) weeks paid vacation. 7. For more than twenty-two (22) years, Michael devoted himself to the growth and success of Trillium. He possessed an impeccable record of service. At all times, he was a loyal and dedicated employee who performed all of his employment duties and obligations in a diligent, professional and competent manner, to the best of his ability. His exceptional performance was recognized by Trillium through promotions and salary increases and through his sheer longevity of service. 8. On April 16, 2012, Michael was advised by management at Trillium that his employment was being terminated due to the company s intention to curtail its operations. At that time, Trillium provided Michael with eight (8) weeks working notice of the termination of his employment. 9. Michael states that, having worked for Trillium for over twenty-two (22) years without interruption, he had no knowledge whatsoever as to his entitlements from Trillium arising from the termination of his employment. Michael specifically states that he had no information as to whether he was entitled to more than eight (8) weeks notice of termination or whether he was owed any payment in lieu of notice. 10. Michael states that in order to educate himself as to whether he received appropriate and sufficient notice from Trillium, he sought the advice of the Defendant, MOL. Specifically, on or about April 16, 2012, immediately upon

5 - 5 - receiving the notice of termination from Trillium, he contacted by telephone the MOL at their Employment Standards Information Centre, a service provided by the MOL, and which the MOL advertises as being dedicated to answering public inquiries with respect to rights and entitlements in the workplace. 11. Upon calling the MOL, Michael spoke with a female representative (the Representative ) of the MOL, the identity of whom is currently unknown to Michael, although whose identity should be known to the Defendant, regarding his employment and termination from Trillium. Michael advised the Representative of his specific situation and made inquiries as to whether the notice that he had received from Trillium was sufficient. In doing so, Michael sought to determine whether he was being adequately compensated by Trillium for the loss of his employment. 12. Michael states that the Representative conclusively advised him that as Trillium was terminating less than fifty (50) employees, he was only entitled to eight (8) weeks working notice. 13. Michael states that the Representative did not advise him that he may have additional entitlements at common law, or that the eight (8) weeks notice amounted to the absolute minimum entitlements, and not his full entitlements. Michael was further not advised that he should consider seeking independent legal advice regarding his entitlements resulting from the termination of his employment from Trillium. 14. Michael states that the Representative was adamant and unequivocal that eight (8) weeks notice of termination was all that Michael was entitled to receive from Trillium. 15. In full reliance on the unequivocal advice he received from the MOL, through the Representative, Michael did not pursue the matter with Trillium, did not seek legal advice from a lawyer, and did not obtain additional notice or severance from the company.

6 Michael states that he ceased working for Trillium on or about June 2, 2012, without receiving additional compensation and without having any other job prospects which would allow him to earn income and continue to support his family. 17. Michael pleads that it was not until April 2013, upon hearing an employment lawyer speak on a local radio station, that it came to his attention that he received completely incorrect advice by the Representative and that he had additional significant termination entitlements under the common law, arising from the termination of his employment at Trillium. 18. Michael states that, as of the date that he realized that he had received incorrect advice from the MOL and that he had additional significant termination entitlements, Trillium had ceased its operations and had no assets, income or a viable business. DUTY OF CARE 19. Michael pleads that the Representative and the MOL owed him a duty to ensure that he understood his entitlements under the Act, as well as at common law, from the termination of his employment at Trillium, or in the alternative, ought to have referred him to seek independent legal advice with respect to his full entitlements. Specifically, Michael pleads that the Representative and the MOL were under a strict duty to advise Michael that the Act only outlines a person s minimum entitlements and not a person s full entitlements, and that he should seek legal advice as to what else may be owed to him as a result of the termination of his employment. 20. Michael claims that the Representative knew or ought to have known that Michael was relying on the advice of the Representative concerning his entitlements resulting from the termination of his employment at Trillium and accordingly, the Representative owed a duty to ensure that Michael understood all his entitlements and options with respect to the said termination.

7 Michael pleads that the purpose of the aforesaid service provided by the MOL is to provide advice with respect to an employee s workplace rights, including their rights on termination of employment. It was clearly the Ministry s intention for Michael to rely on the advice he received from the Representative. 22. Michael further pleads that it was wholly reasonable for him to rely on the advice provided to him by the Representative, as he had called a service dedicated to answering inquiries about workplace rights. Michael received unequivocal advice from the Representative which he saw no reason to question. 23. Michael further pleads that he relied on the advice he received from the MOL, through the Representative, to his direct detriment, as outlined further below. NEGLIGENCE 24. Michael pleads that the Representative and the MOL were wholly negligent in advising him that he had no additional termination entitlements from Trillium when they knew or ought to have known that Michael will be relying on the unequivocal advice he received from the Representative and the MOL. 25. Michael further pleads that the Representative and/or her manager(s), supervisor(s), and/or director(s) were negligent in performing their services and advising Michael of his entitlements with respect to the termination of his employment at Trillium, for which the MOL is vicariously liable. The particulars of such negligence are as follows: As against the Representative, for whose negligence the MOL is in law responsible: (a) she advised Michael that he was only entitled to eight (8) weeks working notice from the termination of his employment at Trillium when she knew or ought to have known that Michael had additional entitlements under the common law and failed to advise Michael of them;

8 - 8 - (b) she failed or neglected to advise Michael that the eight (8) weeks working notice he received from Trillium was only the minimum Michael was entitled to receive under the Act, and that he may have additional entitlements under the common law; (c) she failed or neglected to advise Michael to obtain independent legal advice with respect to Michael s full entitlements from the termination of his employment at Trillium; (d) she failed or neglected to provide Michael with adequate advice regarding his entitlements from the termination of his employment at Trillium when she knew or ought to have known that Michael was relying on her advice; (e) she failed or neglected to make adequate enquiries regarding Michael s employment at Trillium before advising Michael of his entitlements with respect to the termination of his employment at Trillium; (f) she failed or neglected to ensure that Michael had adequate information regarding his entitlements with respect to the termination of his employment at Trillium, and/or failed to advise him to seek independent legal advice; (g) she breached her and the MOL s fiduciary duty to Michael by failing to ensure that Michael had adequate information regarding his options and entitlements from the termination of his employment at Trillium; and, (h) Such further and other grounds as counsel may ascertain prior to the trial of this action. As against the manager(s), supervisor(s) and/or director(s) of the Representative, for whose negligence the MOL is in law responsible:

9 - 9 - (a) he/she or they failed or neglected to ensure that Michael was given adequate advice regarding his entitlements with respect to the termination of his employment at Trillium; (b) he/she or they failed or neglected to ensure that the Representative had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that Michael was given adequate advice regarding his options and entitlements from the termination of his employment at Trillium; (c) he/she or they failed or neglected to ensure that the Representative had been adequate educated, trained, informed and/or instructed before permitting her to interact with the public regarding employment matters, including an employee s entitlements upon termination of employment; (d) he/she or they employed or neglected to employ adequate, competent and/or sufficiently trained personnel to ensure that Michael was given adequate advice regarding his options and entitlements with respect to the termination of his employment from Trillium; (e) he/she or they employed individuals that he/she or they knew or ought to have known were inexperienced, incompetent and/or incapable of ensuring that Michael was provided with adequate advice regarding his options and entitlements from the termination of the his employment from Trillium; (f) he/she or they failed or neglected to provide adequate and proper rules, regulations, training, guidelines and/or policies to the employees and representatives of the MOL to ensure that all employment termination options and entitlements were explained to the public when answering inquiries; and, (g) Such further and other grounds of negligence as counsel may ascertain prior to the trial of this action;

10 DAMAGES 26. Michael pleads that he was entitled to be treated fairly by Trillium when his employment was terminated without cause or reasonable notice on June 8, It was an express and/or an implied term of Michael s employment contract with Trillium that his employment could only be terminated upon the provision of reasonable notice, or pay in lieu thereof, or for just cause. 28. Based upon his age (50), years of service (22), position (product manager), and the availability of similar employment in the present economic climate, Michael pleads that he was entitled to no less than twenty-four (24) months notice of the termination of his employment or pay in lieu of such notice. Further, such notice and/or severance was to consist of all of the components of his compensation during the reasonable notice period, including his salary, and full group benefits coverage including long term disability. 29. By contrast, Trillium only provided Michael with the statutory minimums under the Act, consisting of eight weeks working notice and eight weeks coverage under the group insurance benefits. 30. Michael pleads that, had it not been for the advice of the Representative, he would have sought and obtained legal advice with respect to his entitlements arising from the termination of his employment from Trillium and would have then pursued his full and proper termination compensation. 31. Michael states that he has incurred significant damages, amounting to the severance he forewent by not pursuing the matter with Trillium, which damages resulted directly from the negligent acts outlined above, for which the Defendant is vicariously liable. 32. Michael has taken, and continues to take, diligent steps to mitigate his damages.

11 LEGISLATION RELIED UPON 33. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the following legislation: (a) the Employment Standards Act 2000, S.O. 2000, Chapter 41; (b) the Negligence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.n.1, as amended; (c) the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p.27; (d) the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-50; (e) the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.c.43, as amended; (f) the Excise Tax Act, R.S., 1985, c. E-15, as amended. VENUE FOR TRIAL 34. Michael respectfully requests that the trial of this action be held in the City of Oshawa, in the Province of Ontario. Date: SAMFIRU TUMARKIN LLP Barristers & Solicitors 350 Bay Street, 10 th Floor Toronto, Ontario M5H 2S6 Lior Samfiru LSUC#48609U Tel.: Fax: Lawyers for the Plaintiff