When it comes to expertise in the courtroom, you will want MacDonald & Associates on your side. Natalie MacDonald has been praised by clients as ‘brilliant’ and ‘astute’.

When MacDonald & Associates represents you, they start from day one to build the strongest possible case. When they enter the courtroom, they enter to win.   The team represents both employees and employers before courts and tribunals.

In her first groundbreaking case, Natalie successfully represented her client in Antidormi v. Blue Pumpkin Software Inc. [2004] OJ No 3888, 133 A.C.W.S (3d) 807 (SCJ), which she pursued on behalf of the employee in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In fact, this case is touted as a leading decision in the area of inducement of employees to organizations. Normally, in a case such as this, Ms. Antidormi would have been awarded a notice period of three to four months. However, Natalie achieved a notice period of 12 months, which included an additional two months for extraordinary damages for the bad faith manner in which the company had acted.

In another one of Natalie’s wins with her previous partner, Burgess v. Ontario [2001] OJ No 1190, 55 O.R. (3d) 507 (ONCA) Natalie assisted in representing a senior Ontario public servant. Mr. Burgess was released from his employment allegedly on the basis that his position became surplus. He did not accept this explanation.  In his view, the elimination of his position was done in bad faith and amounted to a disguised, and wrongful, dismissal. The employer, the provincial Crown, took the position that the public servant could not proceed with his action before the Ontario courts because there was a statutory grievance procedure which governed the employment relationship between the parties. Ultimately, Mr. Burgess’ right of access to the courts was preserved when it was heard at the Ontario Court of Appeal, when it found a “lacunae” in the legislation, allowing Mr. Burgess the right to proceed.

In George v AccertaClaim Servicorp Inc., 2016 HRTO 107, Natalie successfully defended her employer client against a human rights case brought by an employee asserting discrimination on the basis of not being promoted to a new position.

In yet another case, Dwyer v. Advanis 2009 CarswellOnt 3407, 178 A.C.W.S. (3d) 58 (SCJ), Natalie was successful in increasing her client’s notice period from one month to 12 months. Advanis had attempted to tie Mr. Dwyer to an Employment Standards Act limiting clause entitling him to only (4) four weeks notice, but Natalie was successful in achieving a result that was 12 times better than before when the court awarded (12) twelve months of reasonable notice.

In a recent motion, both Natalie and Associate, Cody Yorke, were completely successful in knocking out the privileged based arguments of their opponent in Galea v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. 2016 ONSC 1803, 264 A.C.W.S. (3d) 634 (S.C.J.)

Cody Yorke also argued successfully in Jackson v. Lakeview Travel, (12 December 2014) St. Catharines (ONSCSM) that her client had been terminated from her employment when the owner of the company yelled at her to “get out”, and that her client was not required to accept an offer to return to work.  She also successfully established that her client’s efforts at starting her own travel agency were reasonable, rather than seeking employment with another travel agency.

The defining case of Christine Krueger’s employment law career was her first case.  Christine successfully co-represented and managed 28 individual plaintiff employees in their joined wrongful dismissal actions against Canadian Tire (Beckner et al. v. Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited Court File No. 01-CV-207323).  She successfully brought and won a lengthy undertakings and refusals motion on behalf of her clients and fended off an appeal from Canadian Tire of the motion.  She ultimately took it to trial, the matters then settling mid trial to her clients’ great satisfaction.

For her employer clients, Christine has successfully defended and settled many numerous wrongful dismissal actions, including allegations of harassment and claims of constructive dismissal.  One of her most recent rewarding win was defending her client United Lumber and Building Supplies Company Limited from a terminated employee’s claim to termination and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (Claim No. 70123415)She was able to successfully establish that her client had just cause to justify the termination of this employee, the employee was in fact guilty of wilful misconduct, and thus not entitled to termination or severance pay.

In another very recent motion, Associate David Master, was successful on all refusals pursued in a refusals motion, achieving an excellent result for his client in Hardy v. Global.  

 

Natalie C. MacDonald's Cases

  • Burgess v Ontario (Minister of Health), [2001] OJ No 1190, 55 O.R. (3d) 507 (ONCA). Canlii
  • Ceccol v Ontario Gymnastic Federation, [2001] OJ No 3488, 55 OR (3d) 614 (ONCA), affirming (1999) 41 C.C.E.L. (2d) 312 (Ont. Gen. Div.). Canlii
  • Hoffman v VRP Web Technology Inc., (2001) 109 A.C.W.S (3d) 261, 151 O.A.C. 77 (ONCA). Canlii
  • Smillie and Gage Metal Cladding Ltd., Re, 2002 CarswellOnt 9807 (OLRB).
  • Antidormi v Blue Pumpkin Software Inc., [2004] OJ No 3888, 133 A.C.W.S (3d) 807 (SCJ). Canlii
  • Sugimoto v Royal Bank, 2006 CHRT 2. Canlii
  • Sugimoto v Royal Bank, [2007] C.H.R.D. No. 5, 2007 CHRT 5. Canlii
  • Donofrio v Vaughan (City), [2008] O.J. No. 2923, 169 A.C.W.S (3d) 522 (SCJ). Canlii
  • Dwyer v Advanis Inc., 2009 CarswellOnt 3407, 178 A.C.W.S. (3d) 58 (SCJ). Canlii
  • Thomas v EDS Canada Inc., 2011 ONSC 7534, 198 A.C.W.S. (3d) 373 (SCJ). Canlii
  • Galea v Wal-Mart Canada Corp., 2011 ONSC 6887, 210 A.C.W.S. (3d) 614 (SCJ). Canlii
  • George v AccertaClaim Servicorp Inc., 2016 HRTO 107. Canlii
  • Galea v Wal-Mart Canada Corp., 2016 ONSC 1803, 264 A.C.W.S. (3d) 634 (SCJ). - Argued with Associate Cody Yorke. Canlii

Natalie C. MacDonald's Settlements

  • Francis v. Rusonik, O’Connor, Ross, Gorham & Angelini LLP, CV 11-423282. reviewed: link
  • Saldanha v OCAD, HRTO 2013-14850-I. reviewed: link link link link

Cases citing Extraordinary Damages in Canadian Employment Law:

  • Zesta Engineering Ltd. v Cloutier, [2010] O.J. No. 5810, 2010 ONSC 5810 (SCJ) at para 334. Canlii
  • Brito v Canac Kitchens, [2011] O.J. No. 1117, 2011 ONSC 1011 (SCJ) at para 19. Canlii
  • Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter Ltd. v Buchanan, [2010] B.C.J. No 2290, 2010 BCSC 1650 (BCSC) at para 18. Canlii
  • Williams v TWU, [2011] A.J. No. 542, 2011 ABQB 314 (ABQB) at para 108. Canlii
  • Chevalier v Active Tire & Auto Centre Inc., [2012] O.J. No. 3414, 2012 ONSC 4309 (SCJ) at para 59/fn 10.
  • Harbour Air Ltd. and Maloney, Re, [2012] C.L.A.D. No 105, 2012 CarswellNat 7625 (Cda Adj) at para 202.
  • Coppola v Capital Pontiac Buick Cadillac GMC Ltd., [2013] SJ No. 454, 2013 SKCA 80 (SKCA) at para 25/fn 3. Canlii
  • Caskanette v Bong-Keun Choi Dentistry Professional Corporation, 2015 Canlii 31308 (ON SCSM) at para 32. Canlii

Christine Krueger's Cases

  • Almadi Enterprises Inc. (Re), 2014 ONSC 1020. Canlii
  • Ally Credit Canada Limited v. Almadi et al., 2013 ONSC 2667. Canlii
  • Meecham v. Innisfil Senior Community Corporation, 2006 CanLII 19494 (ON SC). Canlii
  • 1248671 Ontario Inc. v. Michael Foods Inc., 2005 CanLII 32926 (ON SC). Canlii
  • Ellas Restaurant (Scarborough) Ltd. v. Zejnelovski-Veseli, 2005 CanLII 25888 (ON SC). Canlii
  • Goldring v. Lococo, 2004 CanLII 10207 (ON CA). Canlii
  • Black v. Robinson Group Ltd., 2004 CanLII 9235 (ON CA). Canlii
  • Exel Global Logistics (Canada) Inc. v. Biscotti, 2003 CanLII 16276 (ON CA). Canlii
  • Bunt v. Assuras, 2003 CanLII 28699 (ON CA). Canlii
  • Somar v. Premier Corrosion Protection Services Inc., 2003 CanLII 8812 (ON SC). Canlii
  • 1248671 Ontario Inc. v. Michael Foods Inc., 2003 CanLII 29395 (ON SC). Canlii