An Ontario court has dismissed IBM Canada’s appeal to narrow the scope of age discrimination allegations in a wrongful dismissal case, allowing the plaintiff to pursue claims of systemic discrimination dating back to 2013 and covering all executive-level employees rather than just marketing executives.
B.M., a 59-year-old former IBM Canada employee, alleges he was terminated in October 2021 as part of a broader age discrimination policy implemented by IBM’s U.S. parent company and adopted by its Canadian subsidiary. The Superior Court of Justice rejected IBM Canada’s attempt to limit the discrimination allegations to marketing executives terminated since 2015, finding the broader claims are relevant and provable.
Systemic discrimination allegations upheld
The court allowed B.M. to maintain his claim that IBM U.S. has “systemically terminated executive level employees without cause on the sole and prohibited basis of their age” since 2013, rejecting IBM Canada’s argument that the timeframe should be limited to 2015 when B.M. first became aware of potential age-based targeting.
IBM Canada had argued the 2013 start date was too broad because B.M. only learned about the alleged discrimination pattern in 2015. However, the court found B.M. had sufficient knowledge to plead the earlier date based on a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigation that found “reasonable cause to believe that IBM U.S. discriminated against older employees from 2013 to 2018.”
The court noted that both dates are relevant – when IBM allegedly began the discrimination and when B.M. became aware of it. The judge stated it was sufficient that B.M. “has some knowledge that the systemic discrimination dates back to 2013 based on the EEOC investigation and has otherwise pled sufficient material facts relating to the allegations of systemic discrimination.”
Scope of affected employees maintained
IBM Canada also failed in its attempt to narrow the discrimination allegations from all “executive level employees” to only “marketing executive level employees.” The company argued this limitation would reduce the scope of potentially burdensome discovery obligations.
The court found no basis to restrict the allegations, noting that if IBM U.S. had a policy aimed at reducing older employees in its workforce, then pleadings of systemic age discrimination against executive employees was appropriate. The judge distinguished this from cases requiring proof that a neutral policy disproportionately impacts a disadvantaged group, stating B.M. claims “he is in a group and he and the other members were all direct targets of a discriminatory policy.”
Evidence of other employee terminations allowed
The court also permitted B.M. to include allegations about specific terminations of other IBM employees that he says demonstrate the discriminatory pattern. IBM Canada sought to strike references to M.G., who was terminated in 2015 after 30 years of service, and C.M., who was terminated in July 2021.
B.M. alleges he competed for both positions but was passed over in favour of younger executives with less relevant experience. The court found these allegations relevant to his claims of systemic discrimination and punitive damages, noting they are “part of the factual circumstances leading up to Mr. B.M.’s termination.”
Legal standards for pleadings motions
The decision reinforces that pleadings motions should only succeed in the “clearest of cases” and that courts will not strike allegations that are relevant to a cause of action. The court emphasized that proving discrimination often requires circumstantial evidence, making broader pleadings necessary.
The judge noted that “it is difficult to get direct evidence of the type of discrimination alleged by the plaintiff” and that the rules of civil procedure provide adequate mechanisms to address concerns about overly broad pleadings through requirements for particulars and limits on discovery scope.
Connection to parent company key factor
A crucial element in allowing the broader allegations was B.M.’s pleading that IBM U.S., not IBM Canada, made key employment decisions about him. He alleges that decisions about his “hiring, promotions, bonuses, scope of work, and termination were made by IBM U.S.” and that IBM Canada was “complicit in the IBM U.S. systemic Age Discrimination Policy.”
This distinguishes the case from others where Canadian subsidiaries operated independently. The court found the connection between IBM U.S. policies and B.M.’s termination by IBM Canada sufficient to justify including allegations about the parent company’s broader practices.
Burden of proof considerations
The court clarified that on pleadings motions, plaintiffs need not demonstrate they have admissible evidence sufficient to prove their allegations. The standard is whether the allegations are “provable” based on material facts pleaded, not whether the plaintiff can currently prove them.
The judge noted that relevant evidence may be in IBM U.S.’s possession, making it premature to strike allegations based on current evidentiary limitations. This reflects courts’ reluctance to dismiss potentially valid discrimination claims at early stages when discovery may reveal supporting evidence.
For more information, see Maule v. IBM Canada Ltd., 2025 ONSC 3860 (CanLII).
