Allyson Yumin Lee

The applicant, a temporary help agency, sought judicial review of ten orders to pay approximately $2.8 million in unpaid wages under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The applicant bypassed the statutory review process before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, arguing exceptional circumstances due to impecuniosity, as the Act requires paying the ordered amount in trust to access the Board review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had an adequate alternative remedy before the Board and failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold to establish impecuniosity.

The applicant, a temporary help agency, sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision affirming an order to pay unpaid wages to twelve workers.

The applicant argued the workers were employed by a subcontractor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably concluded that the applicant was the employer under the Employment Standards Act, as the purported subcontractor was not a legitimate enterprise and the applicant exercised control over the workers' assignments.

The appellant was constructively dismissed after approximately 14 years of employment during which the respondent's management systematically marginalized him.

The central issue was whether damages for breach of the implied term to provide reasonable notice encompassed a long term incentive plan payment that was triggered by the sale of the employer approximately 13 months after the appellant's departure.

The Court held that courts must apply a two-step analysis: first, whether but for the termination the employee would have been entitled to the bonus during the reasonable notice period; and second, whether the terms of the employment contract or bonus plan unambiguously limit or remove that common law right.

Applying this framework, the Court found that the Realization Event occurred within the reasonable notice period and that the LTIP's contractual terms did not unambiguously extinguish the appellant's common law entitlement to damages.

The Court further clarified that a breach of the duty of good faith in the manner of dismissal is a distinct contractual breach from the failure to provide reasonable notice and carries its own analytical framework.

The appellants appealed an order of the motion judge who refused leave to amend their statement of defence and counterclaim by striking certain defences and counterclaims.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge failed to provide explicit reasons for denying leave to amend and that leave should only be denied in the clearest of cases.

The court allowed the appeal and varied the order to grant leave to amend.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim ruling by the Discipline Committee of the Association of Ontario Land Surveyors, which had deferred a decision on a motion to dismiss charges until the end of the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature.

The court emphasized its reluctance to fragment administrative proceedings and noted that the tribunal had the jurisdiction to control its own process and defer its decision until a full evidentiary record was available.