Alexander J. Sinclair

The moving party (appellant) sought to amend or vary a previous appeal decision to include severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, arguing that evidence of the respondent's payroll was implicitly in the trial record.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it did not fall under Rule 59.06(1) for accidental slips or omissions, nor Rule 59.06(2) for new facts or fraud, as the moving party was attempting to re-argue an issue already considered and declined.

The court reiterated that it is not its role to scour the record for evidence not relied upon by parties.

The respondent's attempt to introduce fresh evidence without leave was also rejected.

The appellant employee appealed a judgment upholding his dismissal for cause after a workplace incident involving non-consensual touching of a co-worker.

The appeal challenged factual findings, the just cause conclusion, and sought Employment Standards Act (ESA) benefits and punitive damages for litigation misconduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding just cause and punitive damages, but allowed the appeal for ESA termination pay, finding the conduct did not meet the "wilful misconduct" standard for disentitlement.

The court also set aside the trial costs due to the respondent's egregious litigation misconduct, ordering no costs of the trial.

Police chiefs brought an application under s. 50 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 to enforce arbitration awards ordering a police services board to pay contractual entitlements following the dissolution of a regional police service.

The respondent argued the Arbitration Act did not apply because the arbitration was conducted pursuant to the Police Services Act and that enforcement should be stayed due to a pending judicial review application.

The court held that disputes over remuneration and working conditions of a chief and deputy chief fall outside Part VIII of the Police Services Act, meaning the statutory exclusion of the Arbitration Act did not apply.

Because none of the statutory grounds in s. 50(3) for refusing enforcement were present, the court was required to enforce the awards.

Judgment was therefore granted enforcing the arbitral awards.