Drouillard v. Cogeco Cable Inc.

Drouillard v. Cogeco Cable Inc.

Cogeco was liable for inducing breach of Drouillard's employment contract (intent to procure breach established and no justification), but the court rejected that breach of an internal corporate policy constituted 'unlawful means' for unlawful interference; damages were reduced by mitigation and the award varied to CAD 107,544.77; punitive damages denied and costs reserved for further submissions.

Citation
2007 ONCA 322
Parties
Respondent (appellant by Cross Appeal): Kevin Drouillard; Appellant (respondent by Cross Appeal): Cogeco Cable Inc.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as to liability; quantum of damages varied to CAD 107,544.77; cross-appeal dismissed; costs reserved for further submissions
Legal Topics
Unlawful Interference With Economic Relations, Inducing Breach of Contract, At Large Damages, Punitive Damages, Costs Scale and Procedure
Source Language
English
Tort Contract Law Employment Law Damages Civil Procedure Unlawful Interference With Economic Relations Inducing Breach of Contract At Large Damages +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Drouillard

Respondent (appellant by Cross Appeal)

Cogeco Cable Inc.

Appellant (respondent by Cross Appeal)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Cogeco liable in tort for unlawful interference with economic relations or for inducing breach of contract
  2. 2 Appropriate assessment and quantum of damages including lost income and at-large damages
  3. 3 Whether punitive damages should be awarded

Ratio Decidendi

Cogeco was liable for inducing breach of Drouillard's employment contract (intent to procure breach established and no justification), but the court rejected that breach of an internal corporate policy constituted 'unlawful means' for unlawful interference; damages were reduced by mitigation and the award varied to CAD 107,544.77; punitive damages denied and costs reserved for further submissions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as to liability; quantum of damages varied to CAD 107,544.77; cross-appeal dismissed; costs reserved for further submissions

Orders

  • Damages varied and awarded in the amount of CAD 107,544.77
  • Cross-appeal dismissed