Alex St. John

The Ontario government appealed a decision finding that the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which imposed a 1% cap on compensation increases for broader public sector employees, violated the right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the Act substantially interfered with the respondents' collective bargaining rights and was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as it was not minimally impairing and its deleterious effects outweighed its salutary effects.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to limit the declaration of invalidity to represented employees, as non-represented employees do not benefit from the same collective bargaining protections.

Yellow Corporation, as Foreign Representative for itself and its Canadian affiliates (the Canadian Debtors), brought a motion under section 49 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to recognize and enforce various orders (U.S. Orders) issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in their Chapter 11 proceedings.

The motion, which was unopposed, sought to preserve the value of the Canadian Debtors and business during the wind-down and sale efforts.

The court granted the motion, finding it necessary for the protection of the debtors' property and creditors' interests, and consistent with principles of comity and public policy.

The applicants, representing various public sector unions, challenged the constitutionality of the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which limited wage increases for broader public sector employees to 1% per year for a three-year moderation period.

The court found that the Act substantially interfered with the applicants' right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by preventing meaningful collective bargaining over wages and other compensation-related issues.

The court dismissed the applicants' claims under s. 2(b) (freedom of expression) and s. 15 (equality rights).

The court further held that the infringement of s. 2(d) was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as the government failed to demonstrate a pressing and substantial objective or that the measure was minimally impairing.

The Act was declared void and of no effect.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without cause.

The court found the plaintiff was a dependent contractor from 1994 to 2004 and an employee thereafter, entitling her to a 21-month reasonable notice period based on a 23-year relationship.

The employer's termination clause was held unenforceable for failing to maintain statutory benefits during the notice period.

The court awarded the plaintiff damages for pay in lieu of notice, loss of benefits, and reimbursement for unlawful wage deductions made under an unpaid vacation program.

The defendants brought a motion to strike several paragraphs from the plaintiff's statement of claim under Rule 25.11, arguing they were irrelevant and scandalous.

The plaintiff's claim was based on the common employer doctrine, alleging the defendants were his employers despite his contract being with an insolvent related corporation.

The court struck paragraphs solely related to the plaintiff's employment qualifications and performance, finding them irrelevant to the common employer determination.

However, the court allowed most other impugned paragraphs to stand, including those detailing corporate structure, operations, and post-termination events leading to the original employer's insolvency, deeming them relevant to the common employer analysis and the potential for unfairness to the employee.