Ontario's top court says related companies can share the wrongful dismissal bill
When a Brantford hotel manager won a $120,000 wrongful dismissal judgment and the company that fired her did not pay, she sued a related numbered company tied to the same Hampton Inn and Suites, along with an individual defendant. She died before the case was decided.
In a unanimous decision heard and rendered orally on April 30, 2026, by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, with written reasons released May 5, 2026, her estate prevailed. The court upheld a finding that 2113626 Ontario Inc. and 2170990 Ontario Inc. were common employers of Elizabeth Boyce, holding 2113626 Ontario Inc. liable, along with 2170990 Ontario Inc., for her wrongful dismissal even though only one of the two companies had been named in the original action.
A three-year contract that lasted five months
Boyce was hired in 2009 to be a manager at the Hampton Inn and Suites in Brantford, Ontario, on a contract that was to have a term of three years. Her employment was terminated five months after she started.
She brought a wrongful dismissal claim against 2170990 Ontario Inc. ("217") and obtained an uncontested judgment for $120,000.
When it became evident that 217 would not satisfy the judgment, Boyce commenced a claim against 2113626 Ontario Inc. ("211") and Danny Bawa for wrongful dismissal. Boyce died before her claim could be adjudicated, and her estate continued the litigation.
Two companies, one hotel, one employee
The motion judge, Justice Andrew J. Spurgeon of the Superior Court of Justice, granted summary judgment against 211 and dismissed the claim against Bawa. He found that 211 and 217 met the common employer test, that both companies were jointly involved in running the hotel, and that both companies had a common intention to create a relationship of employment with Boyce.
On appeal, 211 argued the motion judge erred. The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that the motion judge articulated the correct legal test and made findings of fact that were available to him on the record.
In the court's words: "211 essentially invites this court to reconsider and reweigh the evidence. Absent an extricable error of law, this court owes deference to the motion judge's findings of fact and to his application of the common employer test to the evidence. 211 has not identified any palpable and overriding errors."
When one employer won't pay, the other might
The court also rejected 211's argument that the doctrines of res judicata and abuse of process should preclude the estate from pursuing the claim. The panel noted that 211 was not a defendant to the initial action and therefore had suffered no unfairness in having to respond to this claim.
Where 211 and 217 were closely tied entities whose relationship and roles were not easily discernable, the court found it would be unfair to Boyce or her estate to preclude a claim against 211 once it became evident that 217 would not satisfy the judgment.
The Court of Appeal endorsed the motion judge's conclusion that the common employer doctrine is meant to "negate an artificial and unjust application of the res judicata doctrine in circumstances like this." The appeal was dismissed. As agreed between the parties, the court awarded $7,500 all inclusive in costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis.
See Boyce Estate v. 2113626 Ontario Inc., (Hampton Inn and Suites), 2026 ONCA 323
