Adrian Miedema

The appellant appealed the trial judge's dismissal of his action for damages for breach of contract and wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge had concluded there was no employment relationship between the parties.

The Court of Appeal found no grounds to interfere with the trial judge's reasons or result and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The applicant, an Employment Standards Officer, sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision setting aside an order that the employer pay an employee for constructive dismissal.

The employee, after 16 years, was moved to a lower-paying, more physically demanding job due to downsizing.

After six days, he quit due to back problems caused by the new work.

The OLRB found he quit and was therefore not constructively dismissed.

The Divisional Court held this decision was unreasonable, as the employee was clearly constructively dismissed and did not waive his rights by attempting the new job for six days.

The OLRB decision was set aside.

The employer appealed an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer for termination, vacation, and severance pay.

The employee, whose position was declared redundant, was transferred to a lower-graded, more physically demanding position.

After working in the new position for a short time, the employee submitted a letter of resignation, believing he had secured alternative employment.

The Board found that the employee had clearly and unequivocally expressed an intention to quit and acted upon it.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the employee was not constructively dismissed but had voluntarily resigned.

The appeal was allowed and the Order to Pay was rescinded.

On appeal from an order striking portions of a statement of claim, the court held that the fraud claim was not tenable.

However, the pleading against the individual defendants disclosed a cause of action based on unjust enrichment and should not have been struck out on that basis.

The appellant was granted leave to amend within 30 days to remove references to fraudulent conduct and properly plead unjust enrichment.

Given the divided success, the court ordered no costs at the appeal or below.

The union applied for certification of employees at a fur dressing company located on a First Nation reserve, owned by the Band Council, and employing primarily Band members.

The employer argued that its labour relations fell under federal jurisdiction due to 'Indianness' and the Band's extensive involvement.

The Board applied the functional test from Four B Manufacturing, finding that the operational nature of the business was an ordinary industrial activity (a tannery) and did not touch on Indian status or rights.

The Board concluded that provincial labour relations legislation applied and granted the certification application.

The applicant employer sought to terminate the responding party trade union's bargaining rights under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the union obtained its certificate by fraud.

The employer claimed the union filed membership evidence for individuals it knew were not employed by the employer.

The Board dismissed the application on preliminary objections, finding that the employer had received notice of the original certification application but failed to respond.

The Board held that the union's assertion of the employer's identity in the certification application, even if incorrect, did not constitute fraud, as the employer had the opportunity and obligation to dispute it during the certification process.