Dismissed Ontario employee reluctant to participate in virtual mediation
An Ontario court has ruled that an employee alleging wrongful dismissal must participate in mediation by videoconference, even though she requested an in-person session to face her former employer face-to-face.
The Dec. 9, 2025 decision by regional senior justice Calum MacLeod in Spiegelman v. Avantia et al concerned the mode of attendance for a mandatory mediation in a post‑COVID context.
Janice Spiegelman brought an action for "wrongful dismissal and misrepresentation" against Avantia Medical Imaging and Restorative Health, Stittsville Imaging Centre Inc., and Gregory Davies. The case required mandatory mediation.
When the parties could not agree on the format, Spiegelman insisted on in-person mediation while the employer preferred videoconference.
Emotional needs insufficient to override virtual format
In her evidence, Spiegelman said that she wanted the opportunity to “confront the defendant and to look him in the eye.” The court acknowledged this desire but found no compelling evidence that the same objective could not be achieved virtually. Justice MacLeod noted that all parties reside in Ottawa or surrounding areas, while defence counsel and the insurer are located in Toronto.
The court examined whether Spiegelman's emotional needs justified requiring all parties to meet physically. The evidence showed "the plaintiff wishes to confront the defendant and explain what impact the dismissal and manner of dismissal had on her life." However, Justice MacLeod found this to be insufficient grounds for ordering in-person attendance.
The ruling emphasized that the case proceeds under rules where "cost-effectiveness and efficiency are supposed to be paramount." No evidence was presented suggesting the mediator could not conduct an effective session virtually.
‘Real benefits’ to virtual mediation
Justice MacLeod observed that, "anecdotally, many if not most mediations now take place virtually" and noted the evolution from pre-2020 practices when "participation by videoconference would have appeared exotic." The court referenced cases where elderly or international parties successfully participated in mediations by videoconference before the pandemic.
The decision acknowledged changed circumstances in legal practice. According to the ruling, "in some cases, they have real benefits such as pulling in more senior claims examiners, consulting with other counsel, or consultation with key witnesses that might not occur if all parties had to convene in one location."
However, Justice MacLeod clarified: "I do not wish to suggest that Rule 76 mediations should be presumptively by videoconference nor that the decision concerning the mode of mediation should not be taken seriously."
Virtual mediation with hybrid option
The court ultimately determined that "In the final analysis, there is nothing in the evidence that suggests it will make much difference if the mediation takes place in person or on-line. What will make a difference is the willingness of the parties to seek a compromise solution and the assistance of an experienced and competent mediator."
Justice MacLeod directed that the mediation proceed by videoconference, though allowed it could be hybrid "if the parties and the mediator agree." The court awarded no costs of the motion.
The decision explained that "in light of the absence of jurisprudence on this point and the fact that the affidavit evidence and the motion was of little utility, there will be no costs of the motion."
