Hausmann v. Deloitte & Touche LLP

Hausmann v. Deloitte & Touche LLP

The appeal is allowed and the summary judgment is set aside because the respondent's vacation policy is ambiguous and the critical issue—whether the respondent was entitled to direct the appellant to take vacation during the notice period—could not be resolved on a summary judgment motion prior to discoveries; that ambiguity gives rise to a genuine issue requiring trial and could lead to findings of constructive dismissal or breach of contract.

Citation
2012 ONCA 547
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Fred Hausmann; Defendant (respondent): Deloitte & Touche LLP
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Employment/contract Dispute / Appeal From Summary Judgment and Costs Order (on Leave to Appeal Costs)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of Matlow J. set aside; time to appeal extended
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Constructive Dismissal, Vacation Entitlement, Contract Interpretation, Costs
Source Language
English
Employment Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Constructive Dismissal Vacation Entitlement Contract Interpretation Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fred Hausmann

Plaintiff (appellant)

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Employment/contract Dispute / Appeal From Summary Judgment and Costs Order (on Leave to Appeal Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was entitled to direct the appellant to take vacation during the notice period
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's vacation policy is ambiguous and requires discovery to interpret
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's direction amounted to acceptance of resignation, constructive dismissal, or breach of contract

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed and the summary judgment is set aside because the respondent's vacation policy is ambiguous and the critical issue—whether the respondent was entitled to direct the appellant to take vacation during the notice period—could not be resolved on a summary judgment motion prior to discoveries; that ambiguity gives rise to a genuine issue requiring trial and could lead to findings of constructive dismissal or breach of contract.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of Matlow J. set aside; time to appeal extended

Orders

  • Time to appeal extended
  • Appeal allowed