Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff's claims regarding employment treatment and termination are statute-barred, filed approximately 9.5 years after the termination event occurred.

• Discoverability principle does not suspend the limitation period, as all material facts were known to the Plaintiff at the time of termination.

• The Record of Employment confirms the Plaintiff was terminated without cause, evidenced by pay in lieu of notice, contradicting the Plaintiff's assertion of a secret for-cause termination.

• Validity of the settlement and release agreement signed upon departure remains unchallenged on any arguable basis.

• Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the Plaintiff's discrimination claims, a finding upheld on appeal.

• No arguable grounds were established to disturb any aspect of the Applications Judge's original decision.

Background and employment history

Abimbola Ojekanmi commenced employment with Syncrude Canada Ltd. and Owners Syncrude Canada Ltd. in June 2010. His tenure with the Defendants lasted approximately three years before he was terminated without cause on May 24, 2013. At the time of his departure, Mr. Ojekanmi signed a settlement and release agreement with the Defendants and received pay in lieu of notice.

The Plaintiff's claims and commencement of proceedings

Mr. Ojekanmi did not initiate legal proceedings until November 30, 2022, roughly 9.5 years after his termination. In his claim, the self-represented Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants had discriminated against him and treated him unfairly during his employment, that his termination was wrongful, that the settlement and release agreement he signed was invalid, and that the wrongful termination of his housing support benefits led to the foreclosure of his residence.

The Applications Judge's initial decision

The matter first came before Applications Judge L.A. Mattis, who issued a Chambers Endorsement on August 27, 2025. The Applications Judge dismissed Mr. Ojekanmi's application for summary judgment and partially granted the Defendants' application to summarily dismiss or strike the Plaintiff's claim. Specifically, the Applications Judge found that the Plaintiff's claims were barred by the applicable limitation period, that the discoverability principle and allegations of fraud did not suspend that period, that the contract of employment was not for a 10-year fixed term, that the settlement and release agreement was valid, and that the Court had no jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's discrimination claims. The only aspect of the claim that survived was the allegation that the Defendants had disparaged and defamed the Plaintiff by giving negative employment references to other employers and prospective employers, which was adjourned and later summarily dismissed in a subsequent decision of February 26, 2026.

The Plaintiff's arguments on appeal

Mr. Ojekanmi appealed the Applications Judge's decision and presented oral submissions before Justice N. Whitling on March 26, 2026. Given that the Plaintiff was self-represented, the Court approached his submissions with some flexibility. The Plaintiff's central argument was that his termination-related claims should not be subject to the limitation period because they were not discoverable until he obtained certain records from Service Canada, including his Record of Employment, which he claimed contained statements suggesting he was actually terminated for cause. He further argued that the Applications Judge failed to find that he was terminated for cause, reasoning that no reasons were given at the time of his termination and that his employment contract contained various provisions stating that he may be terminated for cause under certain circumstances.

The Court's analysis and ruling

Justice Whitling rejected the Plaintiff's arguments. The Court found that the Record of Employment did not support the Plaintiff's claims; rather, it merely indicated that the Plaintiff was given pay in lieu of notice, which necessarily implies a without-cause termination. All of the facts relevant to the Plaintiff's claims were known to him as soon as they occurred, and therefore the limitation period was not suspended by the discoverability principle. The Court further held that the Plaintiff provided no arguable basis to suggest that the Applications Judge erred by failing to find that he was secretly terminated for cause, nor any arguable basis to conclude that the settlement and release agreement was invalid or otherwise unenforceable. The Applications Judge was also correct in her conclusion that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiff's claims for discrimination. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed in its entirety by Justice Whitling on April 7, 2026, with the Defendants, represented by April Kosten and Carly Kist of Dentons Canada LLP, prevailing on all grounds. No specific monetary award was ordered in this decision, as the ruling concerned the dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims rather than an adjudication of damages.