Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jorge Eliezer Bernal brought a motion to consolidate two separate actions — a constructive dismissal claim and a promissory note debt recovery action — under Rule 6.01(1) of The Court of King's Bench Rules, M.R. 553/88.
   
• Both actions involve the same parties and arise from a closely connected factual matrix rooted in Bernal's long-standing employment relationship with Integra Castings Inc.
   
• Common questions of law and fact exist, as both proceedings require interpretation of the same Employment Agreement and assessment of the parties' obligations.
   
• Separate trials would risk duplication of evidence, inconsistent factual findings, and unnecessary expense.
   
• Section 94 of The Court of King's Bench Act, C.C.S.M. c. C280, directs that a multiplicity of proceedings be avoided as far as possible.
   
• Costs were left unresolved, with the parties given liberty to speak to the matter if they cannot reach agreement.

Facts of the case

Jorge Eliezer Bernal is a metallurgic engineer who signed an employment agreement with Integra Castings Inc. ("Integra") in or around December 2011 and was employed primarily as its Director of Continuous Improvement and Operations. Integra operates a foundry and primary metal manufacturing facility in the City of Winkler, Manitoba. In May 2012, Bernal and Integra allegedly entered into two promissory notes, and in August 2014 an additional promissory note was allegedly executed (collectively, the "Promissory Notes"). In May 2024, Bernal discontinued his job duties with Integra on the basis of alleged constructive dismissal.

Two separate actions followed. On June 5, 2024, Bernal filed a statement of claim in Court of King's Bench File No. CI 24-01-46837 (the "Constructive Dismissal Action"), alleging breach of the Employment Agreement and constructive dismissal. On July 5, 2024, Integra filed a statement of defence and counterclaim in that action, alleging that Bernal breached the Employment Agreement by failing to maintain Integra's company vehicle. Also on July 5, 2024, Integra filed a statement of claim in Court of King's Bench File No. CI 24-01-47157 (the "Promissory Note Action"), related to Bernal's alleged failure to repay a promissory note. Bernal filed a statement of defence and counterclaim in the Promissory Note Action on August 30, 2024, denying the breach and alleging that Integra had charged interest at a rate higher than agreed. Further pleadings were exchanged through October 2024.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Rule 6.01(1) of The Court of King's Bench Rules, M.R. 553/88 permits the court to consolidate two or more pending proceedings where there is a question of law or fact in common, where the relief claimed arises out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences, or for any other reason an order ought to be made. Rule 1.04(1) establishes proportionality as a foundational principle, requiring that rules be liberally construed to secure the just, most expeditious, and least expensive determination of every civil proceeding on its merits. Rule 1.04(1.1) further requires orders and directions proportionate to the nature of the proceeding, the amount at issue, the complexity of the issues, and the likely expense. Section 94 of The Court of King's Bench Act, C.C.S.M. c. C280, additionally directs that, as far as possible, a multiplicity of proceedings shall be avoided.

Reasoning and analysis

Associate Judge Goldenberg was satisfied that the criteria for consolidation under Rule 6.01(1) were met. The two actions, while framed differently — one in constructive dismissal and the other in debt recovery — involve the same parties and arise from a closely connected factual matrix. Both proceedings require the court to interpret and apply the terms of the same Employment Agreement and to assess the nature of the employment relationship between the parties at the relevant times. The circumstances surrounding Bernal's departure, the parties' respective obligations under the Employment Agreement, and the financial arrangements between them — including the Promissory Notes — were found to be factual issues that overlap significantly.

The court further noted that the Promissory Notes were executed while Bernal was employed by Integra, and that the parties' respective claims concerning the notes could not be fully understood without reference to the employment context. Each party raised allegations of breach against the other arising from the same employment relationship, and findings on the terms of the Employment Agreement in the Constructive Dismissal Action could be dispositive of some or all of the issues in the Promissory Note Action. Separate trials would likely require duplication of evidence and risk inconsistent factual findings. The court acknowledged that any possible prejudice to Integra — such as not having the debt collection matter addressed in a summary manner — was outweighed by the benefit of a single, coherent forum for resolving all disputes between the parties.

Ruling and overall outcome

Associate Judge Goldenberg granted Bernal's consolidation motion, finding that consolidation was appropriate under Rule 6.01(1) in light of the common factual and legal issues, the interconnected nature of the relief sought, and the principles of proportionality and efficiency. The two actions will proceed together. Costs were not resolved on the motion; the parties were directed to arrange to speak to the matter if they cannot agree on costs.