Court File No.



TO THE DEFENDANT A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the plaintiff. The claim made against you is set out in the following pages. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer acting for you must prepare a statement of defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the plaintiff’s lawyer or, where the plaintiff does not have a lawyer, serve it on the plaintiff, and file it, with proof of service in this court office, WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this statement of claim is served on you, if you are served in Ontario. If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is forty days. If you are served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is sixty days.


Instead of serving and filing a statement of defence, you may serve and file a notice of intent to defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will entitle you to ten more days within which to serve and file your statement of defence. IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT ARE UNABLE TO PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE. (Where the claim made is for money only, include the following:) IF YOU PAY THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM, and $5,000.00 for costs, within the time for serving and filing your statement of defence you may move to have this proceeding dismissed by the court. If you believe the amount claimed for costs is excessive, you may pay the plaintiff’s claim and $500.00 for costs and have the costs assessed by the court. Date ........................................................................... Issued by ............................................................ Local registrar Address of court office ……………………….. ………………………………………………… ………………………………………………… TO: MAYOR MARIE TRAINER 85 Townline Road West, Hagersville, Ontario N0A 1H0


THE CORPORATION OF HALDIMAND COUNTY The Cayuga Administration Office 45 Munsee Street North, Cayuga, Ontario N0A 1E0


CLAIM 1. The Plaintiff, Janice McLachlan, claims: a. A declaration that she was wrongfully and constructively dismissed from her employment on or about February 2nd, 2007; b. A declaration that the manner in which the Defendants terminated the Plaintiff’s employment was in breach of their duty of good faith and fair dealing; c. A declaration that the Defendant Marie Trainer breached the Plaintiff’s contract of employment by: i. Creating a poisoned work environment for the Plaintiff; ii. Failing to comply with various corporate Defendants’ policies, constitutions and rules; iii. Intentionally inflicting mental suffering on the Plaintiff; iv. Conspiring and wrongfully interfering in the contractual relations of the Plaintiff with The Corporation of Haldimand County; d. Damages for wrongful pre-termination conduct of the Defendants in the amount of $500,000.00 arising from harassment and intimidation, the conspiracy and


interference of and breach of her contractual relations, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and the intentional or negligent infliction of mental suffering; e. General and aggravated damages for the Plaintiff’s constructive dismissal and breach of duty of care and fair dealings in the amount of $150,000.00 representing 24 months’ notice of the Plaintiff’s employment-related compensation during such period plus aggravated damages; f. Damages for defamation and intentional infliction of mental distress in the sum of $150,000.00; g. Punitive and/or aggravated damages in the amount of $500,000.00; h. Special damages in an amount to be determined at trial; i. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on these amounts in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. 43 as amended; j. Costs of this action on a substantial indemnity basis, together with the applicable Goods and Services tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, C. E-15, as amended; and k. Such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court deems just.


2. The Plaintiff, Allan McLachlan claims: a. Damages pursuant to Section 61 of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. F-3; b. General damages in the amount of $75,000.00; c. Special damages in the amount to be determined at trial; d. Pre-judgment interest on all damages pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. 43 as amended; e. Costs of this action on a substantial indemnity basis; f. Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just. 3. The Plaintiff Janice McLachlan, (hereinafter “McLachlan”) resides in the Town of Cayuga in the Province of Ontario. 4. The Plaintiff Allan McLachlan has been married to McLachlan for 14 years and resides with her in the Town of Cayuga, in the Province of Ontario. 5. The Defendant, The Corporation of Haldimand County (hereinafter “Haldimand”) is a corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of Ontario and is the governing municipal body for the region of Haldimand County. 6. The Defendant, Marie Trainer, (hereinafter “Mayor Trainer”) is the elected Mayor of Haldimand County since November, 2003.


7. McLachlan is 57 years of age and was employed as the Office Manager of Dunnville Hydro from 1993 until 2001. In 2001, as a result of an amalgamation between Dunnville Hydro and Haldimand County Hydro, an internal transfer was offered to McLachlan to assume the role of Administrative Co-ordinator for the office of the Mayor of Haldimand. Prior to accepting this position, McLachlan specifically inquired as to whether a change of Mayor could affect the security of this position. She was assured that the position as Administrative Co-ordinator was a permanent position with Haldimand and was not subject to change, regardless of the elected official with whom she worked, and was assured that this was secure until retirement. Based upon these representations, McLachlan accepted the job. 8. Immediately after accepting the job, McLachlan worked with the then-Mayor Lorraine Bergstrand. They enjoyed an excellent professional relationship. 9. In November, 2003, the Defendant, Mayor Trainer was elected Mayor of Haldimand County. Prior to meeting McLachlan or being elected, Mayor Trainer made public derogatory comments about the plaintiff and made it clear during her campaign that she intended on having McLachlan removed from her employment in order to appoint staff of her own choosing. 10. Following the election in November 2003, Mayor Trainer met with senior members of Haldimand with respect to her insistence that she wanted to appoint her own staff. On or about November 25, 2005, Mayor Trainer met with Haldimand’s legal advisor about this


matter. Mayor Trainer was again advised that this position was not changeable. She was advised that if this became an issue, Haldimand and the Mayor could face a harassment complaint or a constructive dismissal case. 11. McLachlan thereafter became the object of continual complaints and ongoing criticisms and derision by Mayor Trainer of such a serious nature that a hostile and poisoned work environment was created. The ongoing behaviour caused McLachlan to suffer despair over the personal attacks made against her by Mayor Trainer, the rumours she heard in the community that she was not doing her job competently, and the hopelessness of getting her workplace situation repaired. 12. Mayor Trainer acted intentionally abusive and with malice throughout the period of time that McLachlan worked with her, with the intent of forcing McLachlan to transfer, quit or go on disability, despite warnings that her conduct could result in a harassment or constructive dismissal case. As a result of being targeted by Mayor Trainer for abuse, McLachlan was isolated and forced to work on her own to protect herself from further abusive conduct. 13. Haldimand, though made aware by McLachlan of the ongoing bullying, derision, degrading behaviour and victimization launched by Mayor Trainer against her and the ensuing anxiety and difficulties which she was having, failed to intervene and stop Mayor Trainer from her abuse in a timely manner which further jeopardized McLachlan’s physical and mental health. From November, 2003 to May, 2005, McLachlan was


subjected to continual harassment by Mayor Trainer of such a serious nature that she began breaking down crying in public on several occasions. A stress-related illness ensued, necessitating her to be off work from May 2005 to October 2005. 14. McLachlan pleads that Haldimand and Mayor Trainer, in her role as head of a Corporation, had the responsibility to ensure that the workplace remained free from harassment and to particularly give heed to the fundamental, implied term of McLachlan’s employment relationship that she be treated with civility, decency, respect and dignity and Haldimand’s specific policy outlining that harassment will not be tolerated. Mayor Trainer failed in these duties and engaged in ongoing harassing

behaviour designed to cause harm to McLachlan including the following actions: a. Mayor Trainer made formal unwarranted and inappropriate derogatory public comments about McLachlan’s performance during her campaign, prior to meeting McLachlan or formally moving into the role of Mayor; b. Mayor Trainer continued to make these comments to McLachlan personally, to various Haldimand County employees, Councillors and to members of the general public upon formally taking office; c. Mayor Trainer openly and continually criticized McLachlan’s ability to do the job without presenting any remedies for corrective action and justified her action by stating that the Mayor should be able to hire her own staff;


d. Mayor Trainer openly and publicly blamed McLachlan for errors of her own making, stating, indicating or implying incompetence on the part of McLachlan; e. Mayor Trainer continually criticized McLachlan’s administrative abilities and her job performance without supporting the file with documentation or attempting to put into process a remedy to help correct such errors; f. Mayor Trainer denied McLachlan e-mail access and voicemail access, making it impossible for her to do her job properly; g. Mayor Trainer failed to proactively provide good communication, clear direction and an understanding of her expectations; h. Mayor Trainer told McLachlan personally and relayed to others that she really enjoys when McLachlan is on holidays. i. Mayor Trainer progressed from minimal communication at best with McLachlan to very little communication other than summary e-mail, voicemail and poorly written notes and progressed to simply dismissing McLachlan with hand gestures; j. Despite Mayor Trainer’s claims of having an open-door policy, she moved the sign from the outside of the office occupied by McLachlan to her office, keeping the door closed between her and McLachlan during the majority of time with no communication;


k. Mayor Trainer demonstrated a lack of concern and disregard for the importance of both corporate and legislative policy; l. Mayor Trainer made knowingly false and damaging comments about McLachlan and her competence to Council, members of the public and the media; m. Mayor Trainer perpetuated an atmosphere of vexatious bullying, hostile and insulting behaviour designed to undermine McLachlan and bring about the termination of McLachlan’s employment as the Administrative Co-ordinator to the Office of the Mayor; 15. McLachlan was forced to undergo medical care for the stress resulting from this harassment. During this time and thereafter, she has felt isolated from her friends and coworkers and was told by her peers that they were directed by Haldimand not to speak with her. 16. Haldimand, through its representations and commitments, had agreed to provide McLachlan with a work environment free of unlawful harassment. Despite this, from November, 2003 to May, 2005, it allowed Mayor Trainer to continue in her harassment of McLachlan when it knew or should have known that McLachlan was a fragile and vulnerable employee. McLachlan’s complaints were initially not properly investigated. It did not take appropriate action including earlier intervention, discipline, or censure of Mayor Trainer, until such time as McLachlan had suffered severe mental distress. It was


not until McLachlan was forced to go on a medically induced leave, on or about May 23, 2005, that Haldimand appointed the Burke Group, who were independent Human Resources Specialists, to conduct an investigation and present a report on findings relating to Mayor Trainer’s behaviour. 17. After extensive investigation, The Burke Group determined in its “Summary of Findings”: “Based on the interviews and evidence presented, Mayor Trainer has made it very clear that she did not want and still does not want Janice McLachlan working with her. She made this very clear during her campaign, as Mayor-Elect, and continually throughout the past year and a half. Sources … have indicated that Mayor Trainer has a history of this type of behaviour. They said that Mayor Trainer would make it very difficult for many past employees, also indicating that “…she would clean house…” and make it common knowledge that she did not trust them. In some cases, she simply shut them out, by not speaking with them. The evidence shows Janice tried on numerous occasions to sit with Mayor Trainer and work things out. At no time throughout the past year and half did Mayor Trainer initiate a corrective action meeting with Janice or identified training programs or courses that would assist Janice. Mayor Trainer has never properly documented said performance issues or presented a formal concern to Council. This behaviour clearly indicates a lack of competence as a manager and a definite lack of the required supervisory skills necessary to properly address the concerns identified. It also became apparent through a number of interviews that Mayor Trainer has a general lack of concern for the importance of both corporate and legislative policy. She was reminded on numerous occasions over the past year and a half by legal counsel and senior staff that her request to remove Janice from her full-time position


could be deemed constructive dismissal or harassment, if the Mayor continued to disregard set policy and appropriate procedures. This would suggest that Mayor Trainer does not have the capacity or the desire to change. Based on evidence examined and interviews conducted, statements made by Mayor Trainer blaming Janice for errors on several occasions, as well as statements made to the press regarding Janice’s performance, were false. As identified earlier in this report, all organizations have a legal and moral responsibility to ensure a workplace free from harassment. Based on the full investigation comprised of interviews, documented incidents and other supporting documents, the actions of Mayor Marie Trainer constitute harassment toward her Administrative Co-Ordinator, Janice McLachlan.”

18. The Burke Group outlined the following options for Haldimand to address this harassment: A. “Temporarily remove Janice McLachlan from the situation for the balance of Mayor Trainer’s current term, with full salary/benefits and a written understanding that this is not a disciplinary course of action. Should Mayor Trainer be re-elected, Haldimand County would face an ongoing responsibility to ensure that Janice is not subjected to harassment, so a permanent decision would have to be made at that time. After a full review of all documentation and her personnel file, there is no evidence to support, nor would the Burke Group recommend, the termination of Janice McLachlan. B. If the Mayor were a senior employee in a non-municipal setting, she would be removed from her position immediately, for cause. Since Mayor Marie Trainer is an elected official, the Burke Group would suggest a detailed review with legal counsel to determine if this course of action is an option.


C. Allow Mayor Trainer the opportunity to step down/retire from her role effective immediately. The Burke Group would suggest a detailed review with legal counsel to discuss Haldimand County’s liability in this matter. D. Provide Mayor Trainer with a written reprimand and insist that she sign off on a detailed commitment to change, as follows, prior to returning Janice McLachlan to her position: • • • • • Written apology to victim; Development/enhancement of code of conduct for dealing with staff/council/the public/public property; Regular reports/meetings with HR or assigned professional to monitor progress and issues; Orientation/education session re harassment; Education/training on: o Conflict resolution; o Effective communication strategies; o Effective leadership strategies; o Using basic technology - e-mail/voicemail”

19. It is also advised that Haldimand construct clearly defined roles and responsibilities for the Mayor for working with Administrative Co-ordinators. McLachlan is not privy to what transpired subsequently between the Mayor and Haldimand and whether the

defendants followed through on the Burke Report recommendations. McLachlan did receive a letter of apology from Haldimand, but it was signed by the CEO, not Mayor Trainer.


20. Upon return from her stress leave on or about October 11, 2005, McLachlan was told that she was to be temporarily removed from her position, with an understanding that it was not in any way a disciplinary course of action and that she retained the option at her discretion to return to her position at a later time. A letter dated September 2, 2005, together with a “release” document was presented to McLachlan for signature, purporting to discharge the defendants from the harassment McLachlan had faced on the basis of the following agreement: i. That Janice McLachlan be offered temporary assignments as may be amended from time to time, referenced and attached to the correspondence from the CEO dated September 2nd, 2005 until the next municipal election in November, 2006; ii. That Janice McLachlan be given the option of resuming the position of Administrative Co-ordinator to the Mayor immediately after the 2006 election, provided that such option must be exercised on or before January 1st, 2007; iii. That Janice McLachlan, in the interim, shall have the right to apply for other permanent internal postings within the County in lieu of completing the assignments referenced in paragraph (i) above and in lieu of the option referenced in paragraph (ii) above; iv. That in the event Janice McLachlan does not exercise the option referenced in paragraph (ii) above, and is not posted into another position pursuant to paragraph (iii) above, the County shall use its reasonable efforts to place Janice McLachlan in a budgeted position for which she has appropriate skills and abilities through the normal hiring or posting process and failing which, the County and Janice McLachlan shall negotiate a fair severance package based on age, years of service and position in the organization. 21. McLachlan signed this document (hereinafter referred to as “The Agreement”) based on the above undertakings and her understanding that she could resume the prestigious


position of Administrative Co-ordinator to the Mayor in the future. No discussion or written documentation directed that the exercise of option (ii) was in any way dependant upon the outcome of the November 2006 election of the Mayor. 22. After signing The Agreement, McLachlan, who had previously occupied her own private office and a position of prestige, responsibility and management, was directed to work on temporary menial and humiliating jobs, which she did her best to complete without complaint and dignity. 23. By making the complaints and/or providing the information upon which the complaints were made, and which complaints and information were malicious and totally without merit, Mayor Trainer libelled and slandered the Plaintiff and defamed her character, the details of which include: a. Mayor Trainer provided interviews to media and stated publicly prior to her election that she did not want to work with McLachlan and other senior staff in the event that she took office and became head of the municipal corporation. b. On November 13, 2003, four days after winning the election and two weeks before taking office on December 1, Mayor Trainer spoke to a senior county manager about changing administrative assistants. On November 19, Mayor

Trainer reported having a real problem working with McLachlan.


c. Mayor Trainer made public comments with respect to the harassment allegations and the Burke investigation wherein she published untrue and defamatory statements in respect of McLachlan which statements included comment that “this has been part of an intention process to destroy her”. d. In August 2005, upon release of the Burke Report Mayor Trainer gave an interview with the Hamilton Spectator denying that harassment occurred, stating that the genesis was that McLachlan was hired by the former mayor Lorraine Bergstrand, whom Mayor Trainer defeated in the 2003 election. Mayor Trainer stated: “She was hired by her and was her assistant for 3 years…It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what’s going on”...Trainer said the two did not get along from the time she assumed the mayor’s chair – “I tried, but she was very upset. I can understand that. I kicked her friend out of her job.” e. On August 10, 2005 Mayor Trainer told The Chronicle: “We’re on a witch hunt. They were very determined to find something so they did. It’s council’s opinion. It certainly wasn’t my lawyer’s opinion”. f. On August 17, 2005 Mayor Trainer told the Chronicle, “I understand why she (McLachlan) was so angry at me because I had kicked her friend out of her position. And it never really got better”.


24. McLachlan pleads that the statements made by Mayor Trainer to Haldimand employees, members of the media and public, about the work and competence of McLachlan and those subsequent statements about the findings of the Burke report are defamatory. The allegations of wrongdoing were calculated to cause McLachlan mental distress and usurp the findings of the Burke report, and she has suffered damages as a result. 25. Mayor Trainer knew that her interviews to the Chronicle, Regional News and The Hamilton Spectator were target newspapers read by members within the plaintiff’s community. 26. On or about February 2006, McLachlan was assigned the temporary position of working as Administrative Assistant to the Manager of Planning and Development. This position required that she work at a cramped corner desk used for students in a geographical location further away from her residence. McLachlan completed all assigned tasks of this position on the basis that this was a temporary job, only, until she was able to exercise her option, which she did in December 2006. 27. On or about December 14th, 2006, Haldimand offered McLachlan this Grade 3 position of Administrative Assistant in the Planning and Development Division on a full time basis. This offer was clearly a demotion from her Grade 4 position as Administrative Coordinator to the Mayor in terms of position, geographical location, grade level, nature of work, working environment, prestige and salary. McLachlan declined this position.


28. Upon reliance on The Agreement and with the expectation that the defendants had acted in accordance with the recommendations in the Burke report, on December 21st, 2006, McLachlan formally exercised her option to resume her position of Administrative Coordinator to the Mayor. It was her expectation that with the passage of time and reflection, Mayor Trainer would have contemplated the seriousness of her unprofessional actions, undergone the necessary change in her behaviour, taken training in areas of sensitivity, obtained an understanding of harassment legislation, conflict resolution and effective communication skills as outlined in the Burke report and Haldimand’s anticipated and recommended mandate to the Mayor. 29. Haldimand refused to honour McLachlan’s option. Haldimand advised McLachlan that it had decided it would not be in the best interests of McLachlan or the County to have her return to the position of Administrative Co-ordinator to the Mayor and unilaterally refused her option to do so set out in The Agreement. Despite the clear wording of the Agreement, Haldimand then refused to participate in a negotiation for a fair severance package as contemplated in the Agreement and demanded that McLachlan assume the assistant’s role in the Planning Department on a full time basis. Because of economic constraints, McLachlan was forced to do so. 30. McLachlan pleads that Haldimand’s refusal to reinstate her position or negotiate a fair and reasonable severance constitutes bad faith and repudiation, fundamental breach or


negation of The Agreement purported to be a “release” that she was induced to sign in order to resume employment following her stress leave. 31. Haldimand’s unilateral change to McLachlan’s duties and responsibilities, together with the change in the reporting requirements in all of the circumstances was a repudiation of the implied, explicit and fundamental terms of her employment and amounted to a dismissal. The Plaintiff refuses to accept this demotion and pleads and relies upon the doctrine of constructive dismissal. 32. McLachlan pleads that her professional performance with Haldimand and its predecessor has been exemplary. She further states that in light of various factors including her age, education and the equivalent of alternative employment, she will encounter difficulty obtaining comparable alternative employment. 33. At the date of termination, the Plaintiff earned an annual salary of $46,191.60. The Plaintiff claims this remuneration for a period of 24 months plus aggravated damages and the value of all benefits as well as loss of the employer contribution to her Canada Pension Plan, coverage of her medical benefits and the loss of her Employment Insurance as part of her damages. 34. The Plaintiff states that because of the conduct of the Defendants, she has suffered and continues to suffer a loss of reputation which has further aggravated her damages.


35. Contrary to the policies of Haldimand, the recommendations in the Burke report, and its assurances and representations to McLachlan, Haldimand failed to provide or ensure that Mayor Trainer obtain adequate and timely training or assistance to enable her to act with staff in a professional manner as outlined in the independent Burke Report, or,

alternatively, Mayor Trainer failed to undergo or heed such training to assist her in addressing her abusive tendencies and enabling her to manage work environment in a professional capacity. 36. McLachlan claims that Mayor Trainer intentionally inflicted mental suffering on her by virtue of her wrongful conduct as set out in this Claim, which was calculated to cause mental suffering to McLachlan and/or was conduct which she knew or ought to have known would cause mental suffering to McLachlan. This included making malicious and false allegations against McLachlan, circulating defamatory information about her incompetence, stating that she was not to be trusted, and inaccurately describing McLachlan’s employment, the results of the Burke investigation and her own actions resulting in McLachlan’s stress leave and harassment. 37. As a result of the Defendants’ wrongful conduct, McLachlan experienced severe anxiety, depression, social isolation, insomnia, humiliation, mental distress, frustration, aggravation, the erosion of her self-esteem and confidence. McLachlan’s normal enjoyment and comfort of her family life and friendships are severely impaired. This


resulted in medical care which was triggered as a result of the stress from the wrongful conduct of the Defendants. 38. In addition, Haldimand further exacerbated her health difficulties by having McLachlan sign an agreement as a precondition to return to employment following her stress leave, which they knew or should have known that she was a vulnerable employee and that they would not honour the Agreement if she chose to return to her position. Haldimand executed this agreement in bad faith or were negligent with respect to the undertakings provided therein. In reliance on the representations made, McLachlan did not pursue her legitimate claim against the defendants and furthermore, underwent a series of menial and humiliating jobs relative to her experience on the expectation and promise that she would be able to resume her position in the future at her option. The representation that McLachlan would be fairly treated and the above-noted representations made to McLachlan were either deliberately breached by Haldimand or were made negligently. These representations were relied on by McLachlan to her detriment and she was exposed to further abuse and economic and other damages. 39. McLachlan pleads that obtaining her signature on the documentation was done in a manner which was deceitful, abusive and breached the obligation of the Defendants to correct her poisoned work environment and make others, including Mayor Trainer, accountable for her improper and unlawful behaviour.


40. McLachlan believed the representations made to her and continued her employment with the Defendants in good faith, with the expectation that the representations made were also made in good faith and accurately depicted her options in December 2006. The refusal of Haldimand to honour the Agreement was the final step in damaging McLachlan’s reputation in the marketplace, leaving the public to believe the malicious rumours spread by Mayor Trainer about McLachlan’s job performance and competence. 41. All of the above damages represent losses that the Defendants knew or ought to have known would flow from their conduct and the conduct of its employees and agents as plead in this herein Claim. The Plaintiff states that there existed a special relationship, sufficiently proximate, such as to give rise to a reasonable duty of care on behalf of the Defendants not to adversely harm this Plaintiff, both throughout and following the employment relationship. 42. The Defendants terminated McLachlan’s employment in breach of their duty of good faith and fair dealing. 43. The Defendants further breached their duty of care as the employer of McLachlan in the circumstances set out in this Claim. 44. McLachlan further claims that the egregious, wrongful conduct of the defendants during the course of McLachlan’s employment and at the time of her termination, deserves an award for punitive damages, particularly given the high-handed, reprehensible and


shocking behaviour from an elected official to a long-standing and vulnerable employee. The Defendants’ conduct as set out in this Statement of Claim was unfair, malicious, unethical, unlawful, high-handed, arbitrary and callous. The unconscionable tendering of the agreement to induce McLachlan to engage in a series of jobs not in accordance with her contract, while purporting to discharge the defendants from liability resulting from the harassment faced by McLachlan, is particularly unconscionable and is deserving of a claim for punitive damages. 45. The Plaintiff states that in the course of seeking employment, she has incurred expenses, the full particulars of which the Plaintiff undertakes to provide the Defendants prior to trial. 46. The Plaintiff, Allan McLachlan, has dedicated his full time and efforts to provide the care and support required by his wife McLachlan and will continue to do so. Allan McLachlan has lost the guidance, care and companionship of his wife due to the harm and damage caused by the Defendants. 47. The Plaintiffs pleads and relies upon the provisions of the Negligence Act,, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.1, as amended and the Family Law Act R.S.O. 1990, and upon the provisions of the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12., as amended. 48. The Plaintiff proposes that this action be tried at the City of Hamilton.


DATE: April 23, 2007

MAUREEN CURRIE Barrister and Solicitor 1155 North Service Road West Suite 11 Oakville, Ontario L6M 3E3 LSUC #28935U Tel: 905 847 2826 Fax: 905 847 0345 Solicitor for the Plaintiff

JANICE McLACHLAN et al Plaintiff(s)


MARIE TRAINER et al Defendant(s)

Court file no. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Proceeding commenced at Cayuga, Ontario

STATEMENT OF CLAIM Maureen B. Currie Barrister and Solicitor 1155 North Service Road West Suite 11 Oakville, ON L6M 3E3 LSUC No. 28935U Tel. 905-847-2826 Fax 905-847-0345 Solicitor for the Plaintiff

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful