Andrew B. Lister

The applicant company sought judicial review of an interlocutory procedural order made by an arbitrator in an ongoing grievance arbitration.

The order required the company to produce documents found to be arguably relevant and declined to bifurcate the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, reiterating its disinclination to intervene in ongoing labour relations processes absent exceptional circumstances.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a successfully opposed motion for a stay of hearing.

The respondent sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis.

The court considered factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including success, complexity, and proportionality.

Given the non-complex nature of the issues and the hearing in writing, the court awarded the respondent $3,500.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant moved to amend the timetable and compel the respondent to provide a further and better affidavit of documents.

The respondent sought to dismiss the motion, arguing compliance and proportionality.

The court found the respondent's affidavit of documents did not comply with Rule 30.03 and Form 30A, particularly regarding particulars for Schedule A and detailed grounds for privilege in Schedule B. The applicant was also directed to review her Schedule B. The court ordered the respondent to serve a compliant affidavit and amended the litigation timetable.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs, Reginald and Linda Cyr, sought leave to amend their statement of claim on the sixth day of a simplified rules trial to add claims for punitive and aggravated damages.

The defendant, The Cataraqui Cemetery Company, opposed the motion, arguing the amendments were statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, as the underlying facts were known years prior.

The court granted leave, finding that the proposed amendments were elaborations on facts already pleaded and did not fundamentally alter the nature of the action or cause uncompensable prejudice to the defendant.

The plaintiff, a former staff member for a Member of Parliament, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that her employment contract was valid and that the collective agreement had no legal force, arguing that the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act excluded MP staff from collective bargaining.

The defendant MP brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction due to the collective agreement's arbitration clause.

The plaintiff also sought to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim for defamation for lack of notice under the Libel and Slander Act, and to strike a paragraph referencing her counsel's political background.

The court dismissed both motions for summary judgment, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the scope of the Act and the collective agreement, and whether the defamation claim required notice.

However, the court granted the motion to strike the paragraph about the plaintiff's counsel's political background as irrelevant and vexatious.

The applicant alleged she was terminated from her employment because her daughter filed an application with the Tribunal.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed three preliminary issues.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application pending an Employment Standards Act claim due to lack of information.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the remedies sought, noting the early stage of proceedings and lack of prejudice.

Finally, the Tribunal removed the individual respondent as a party, finding that the corporate respondent was the appropriate party for the termination allegation and the individual's conduct was not central to the case.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a successful summary judgment motion brought by the defendants.

The defendants sought $45,380.73 in costs, while the plaintiff argued for $9,000.

The court fixed costs at an all-inclusive sum of $17,500, payable forthwith by the plaintiff to the defendants.

The decision considered factors under Rule 57.01(1), a Rule 49 offer, and the principle from Boucher v. Public Accountant Council for Ontario that costs should be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, rather than solely reflecting the successful litigant's actual incurred costs.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The corporate respondent had previously obtained an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, which the applicant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether to defer the human rights application pending the appeal.

After granting multiple extensions, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request for a further extension, finding no valid medical basis.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the Divisional Court appeal, as the allegations significantly related to the applicant's interactions with the landlord.

This was a motion for summary judgment by eight of the named defendants (six holding companies and two individual directors) in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendants sought to dismiss claims against them, arguing they were not 'common and related employers' and that the corporate veil should not be pierced for the individual directors.

The court applied principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin for summary judgment motions, and considered the common employer doctrine and personal liability of corporate officers.

The motion was granted, dismissing the claims against the individual directors due to no evidence of fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or want of authority, and against the holding companies as they did not exercise effective control over the plaintiff's employment.

The applicant sought to commence a breach of settlement application under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code without using the required Tribunal forms.

She also requested an interim remedy to stop an eviction proceeding at the Landlord and Tenant Board and asked to expedite the matter.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to accept the applicant's hand-written documents as a valid application due to her unique circumstances.

However, the Tribunal removed non-signatory respondents, denied the request for an interim remedy because it lacks jurisdiction to interfere with LTB proceedings, and denied the request to expedite.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking additional production and answers to undertakings, the court addressed costs.

The defendants were successful and sought substantial partial indemnity costs after incurring over $17,000 in legal fees.

The court held that although the defendants were entitled to costs, the circumstances justified only a modest award because certain factual concessions were made after the cross-examinations that contributed to the dispute.

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court fixed costs at $4,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

Payment of the award was deferred pending determination of a related summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion for further production of corporate and financial records to resist a pending summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff sought to establish that multiple related corporate defendants were his common employer.

The defendants admitted to joint control and administration, and the operating companies undertook joint and several liability for any damages awarded.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the requested disclosure was disproportionate and unnecessary given the defendants' admissions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by his employer and his union.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application against the union had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged the union failed to act on his complaints regarding the employer's failure to accommodate his disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union, finding the applicant provided no evidence linking the union's inaction to his disability.

The applicant, a combo truck driver, suffered a workplace injury to his shoulder and groin.

After a period of modified work and a return to regular duties, the applicant claimed he was still disabled and requested further accommodation.

The respondent, believing the applicant was malingering and attempting to leverage his injury for better employment terms, refused to offer further modified work and effectively terminated his employment.

The Tribunal found that the issue of the applicant's disability and the initial failure to accommodate had been appropriately dealt with by the WSIB.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent breached both the procedural and substantive components of the duty to accommodate when it refused to engage in further dialogue and terminated the applicant's employment.

The applicant was awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with compensation for lost wages and retraining costs.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking removal of the plaintiff’s solicitor for alleged conflict of interest, the court addressed costs.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $6,700, while the defendant argued the time spent was excessive.

The court held that costs should follow the event and that the unsuccessful party should ordinarily pay costs.

Although the motion lacked merit, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and instead fixed costs at a reduced amount.

The applicant requested to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending a WSIB appeal regarding his workplace injury and accommodation.

The WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the appeal in part but returned issues of fitness for work and availability of alternate duties to the WSIB operating area for further enquiry.

The Tribunal denied the request to re-activate, finding that proceeding concurrently with the WSIB's ongoing enquiries could lead to conflicting findings and decisions.

The application remains deferred.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding that a purported temporary lay-off was in fact a termination of the respondent employee's employment without notice or cause.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, noting they were fully supported by the evidentiary record.

The Court also rejected the appellant's argument regarding an implied term of dismissal without notice, as it was not pleaded or supported by evidence, and affirmed the five-month notice period as reasonable.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union, alleging it acted in bad faith by failing to refer his job competition grievance to arbitration.

The union had processed the grievance through the grievance procedure but ultimately decided not to proceed to arbitration following a vote at a union membership meeting.

The Board found that the union had adequately turned its mind to the merits of the grievance, made reasonable assessments regarding the collective agreement, and conducted the membership meeting fairly.

The application was dismissed as there was no evidence of bad faith, malice, or arbitrary conduct by the union.

The applicant employer appealed an Order to Pay for unpaid wages.

In a previous decision, the adjudicator found the applicant was not personally liable as a related employer, though his corporations were.

The remaining issue was whether the letter of credit held by the Director of Employment Standards should be returned to the applicant.

The adjudicator found that the initial letter of credit establishing jurisdiction was provided by one of the liable corporations, not the applicant personally.

Therefore, the Director was not required to return the letter of credit and could disburse the funds to the employees.