Escorted out by security with a crowbar, and the extra payout the judge refused
A long-serving executive was pushed out of a family business and escorted from its head office by people in security sweaters, one holding a crowbar. He won a payout for the way his career ended. But a judge refused almost every extra dollar he sought.
The decision, released July 13, 2026, by Justice Mathen of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, granted the former vice-president a declaration that he had been constructively dismissed and ordered his former employer to pay $373,207.83 for 27 months' pay in lieu of notice, along with interest and costs. The company had not defended the claim.
Escorted from the office
The executive began working for Grand Cheese Company on or about February 26, 1990, and by roughly 2004 held one of its most senior positions, vice-president of retail and wholesale. His pay included a base salary, benefits, vacation pay, a car allowance and various car, grocery and phone payments. He was 49, with about 35 years of service, when his employment came to an end.
According to the claim, which the company never contested, he was subjected to unilateral manoeuvers designed to force him to quit. He was barred from the head office and his remote access was cut off. The company went on to withhold his wages, end his benefits coverage, give him no notice of termination and leave his statutory termination and severance pay unpaid.
In an affidavit, he described being confronted at the company's offices on January 30, 2025, by people he took to be security staff, who he believed had been instructed to break into his office with a crowbar. When he tried to go in, they blocked him, one of them still holding the crowbar, and he and his brother were told to collect their things and "get out." He deposed that he thought he was in danger.
A default judgment that still required proof
The corporate defendants never filed a defence and were noted in default in February 2026. Under Ontario's rules, that meant the facts set out in the statement of claim were deemed admitted. Justice Mathen proceeded to decide the matter in writing, on a default basis.
Even with the defendants in default, the deemed admissions entitled the plaintiff to judgment only where the admitted facts, in law, supported the claim. Justice Mathen found liability made out on the strength of those admissions together with two affidavits and the plaintiff's factum, declaring that he had been constructively dismissed.
On the length of notice, the court settled on 27 months. Justice Mathen pointed to the 35-year tenure, the executive and highly autonomous nature of the role, a specialized skill set built over a career devoted to a family firm, compensation the court considered hard to match in the current market, an abrupt departure, and the company's word that an investigation into him was underway, which cast suspicion over him. The award came to $373,207.83.
No aggravated, punitive damages
Beyond the notice award, the plaintiff sought another $190,000 in damages, plus special damages to be determined, spread across aggravated, punitive and mental-distress claims, defamation, the tort of assault and an injury-to-dignity award under the Human Rights Code. On the crowbar episode, the court found no assault. The court found that the direction to remove his belongings, even if delivered harshly, did not create a reasonable apprehension of harm, and that the crowbar was not probative.
The court rejected the remaining claims in turn. Justice Mathen was not persuaded the conduct reached the level required for punitive, aggravated, or special damages. The injury-to-dignity claim failed because the plaintiff had not explained how he suffered a human rights violation, and the mental-distress tort failed because the distress described did not meet the threshold the law requires.
The defamation claim went the same way. The court found the factum did not explain how the company's alleged statements to third parties amounted to defamation, and observed: "The plaintiff cites no defamation caselaw." The judge declined to award the extra damages. Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis, and pre-judgment interest was set at four per cent running from February 2025.
