In Boyce Estate v. 2113626 Ontario Inc. (Hampton Inn and Suites), 2026 ONCA 323, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently upheld the application of the common employer doctrine in the context of a wrongful dismissal claim. This decision is a good reminder that complex corporate structures are not meant to unjustly or unlawfully shield employers from liability.
Background to Boyce Estate
In 2009, Elizabeth Boyce was hired on a three-year fixed-term contract as a manager at the Hampton Inn and Suites in Brantford, Ontario. She was terminated five months after she started working.
The Hampton Inn and Suites was one part of the Bawa family's business. The Bawa family conducted their business through two corporations: 2113626 Ontario Inc. ("211") and 2170990 Ontario Inc. ("217"). Mr. Danny Bawa’s evidence was that 211 and 217 were distinctly separate corporations. In particular, 211 was created to develop the property that would become the Hampton Inn and Suites, and 217 was created to operate the business.
Ms. Boyce initially brought a wrongful dismissal claim against 217. She was successful in obtaining unopposed summary judgment in the amount of $120,000 against 217. 217 admitted that it was her employer. However, it ultimately could not and did not satisfy the judgment against it. Ms. Boyce subsequently sought summary judgment against 211 and Mr. Bawa under the common employer doctrine but died before her claim could be decided. Her estate continued the litigation and was successful against 211.
Ms. Boyce also claimed against Mr. Bawa, but was not successful. The motion judge was clear that the common employer doctrine does not involve piercing the corporate veil.
211 appealed both the decision on the common employer issue and the motion judge's rejection of its argument that res judicata precluded Ms. Boyce from bringing a claim against 211.
In a succinct decision, the Court of Appeal affirmed that the motion judge applied the correct legal test for evaluating whether two companies are common employers and deferred to the motion judge’s decision regarding res judicata.