Andrew F. Camman

The parties requested a direction incorporating their understanding of the conditions governing document production in the proceedings.

The Public Service Grievance Board issued a confidentiality order directing that all produced documents and recordings be kept confidential, used solely for the proceedings, and returned or destroyed at the conclusion of the matter.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the Complainant's grievance, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complaint was filed prematurely during the mandatory dispute resolution period.

The Employer also argued that ex parte communications between the Board's Registrar and the Complainant regarding filing timelines raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the premature applications were effectively withdrawn and the final application was filed within the correct statutory window.

The Board further held that the Registrar's communications provided permissible legal information rather than legal advice, and did not prejudice the Employer or raise an apprehension of bias.

The plaintiff, a Health, Safety and Training Manager, was terminated for cause by her employer after 13 years of service.

The termination stemmed from her handling of her own workplace safety and insurance claim, including delayed reporting, inconsistencies, and a conflict of interest.

The court found the employee's conduct, including dishonesty and suborning a lower-level employee, constituted just cause for dismissal.

The employee's claim for wrongful dismissal and punitive damages was dismissed.

The employer's counterclaim for an unpaid loan was also dismissed, as the loan was held by a separate numbered company, not the employer.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal multiple orders and requested extensions of time.

The Divisional Court denied the motion and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $2,500.

This appeal concerned a failed residential real estate transaction where the buyers' financing fell through, leading the sellers to terminate the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) and retain the deposit.

The sellers subsequently resold the property for a higher price.

The buyers sought specific performance, damages, or relief from forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that the sellers were entitled to terminate the APS as they were ready, willing, and able to close, and that relief from forfeiture was not warranted, despite the sellers realizing a profit on the resale.

The court also addressed the duty of honest performance and the effect of anticipatory repudiation.

The applicants sought specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property, punitive damages, or in the alternative, relief from forfeiture and return of their $50,000 deposit.

The respondents terminated the agreement after the applicants' financing fell through and they requested an extension of the closing date.

The court found that the termination was due to the applicants' inability to close, not merely their request for an extension.

The court dismissed the application, finding no improper termination, no bad faith by the respondents, and no unconscionability in the respondents retaining the deposit, despite reselling the property for a higher price.

The defendant brought a motion to quash two summonses to witness issued by the plaintiffs, which sought to examine two of the defendant's lawyers on pending interlocutory motions regarding the sale of jointly owned property.

The court quashed the summonses on three grounds: failure to comply with service requirements under the Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to demonstrate that the lawyers' evidence was relevant and necessary, and abuse of process.

The court found the summonses were issued for ulterior purposes, including gathering evidence for a separate action against the lawyers and attempting to create a conflict of interest to preclude them from acting as counsel.

A deputy superintendent challenged his dismissal arising from the preferential treatment of an incarcerated correctional officer and his subsequent statements during the employer's investigation.

The Board found that the complainant, as a senior manager, set the stage for preferential treatment, failed over several days to correct obvious policy breaches, and materially misled investigators by omissions and false statements.

Applying the contextual just-cause approach, the Board held that the misconduct and resulting loss of trust were irreconcilable with continued employment.

Lengthy service and a prior clean record were insufficient mitigating factors.

The Complainant, a Sergeant at a correctional facility, was terminated following the murder of an inmate by his cellmate.

The Employer alleged the Complainant failed to respond to a report of a possible brew and intoxicated inmate, failed to conduct a security tour, failed to properly report the incident, and refused to cooperate in a section 22 investigation.

The Board found that the Complainant's response to the report of a brew was consistent with the accepted practices at the institution at the time, and that security tours were not mandatory.

However, the Board found cause for discipline regarding his failure to file a timely occurrence report, submitting a report to himself, and refusing to participate in the section 22 investigation (which he did on the advice of criminal counsel).

The Board concluded that termination was excessive, substituting a 1-year suspension and ordering reinstatement with compensation from the date of his criminal acquittal.

Two correctional sergeants grieved the termination of their employment following the death of an inmate in custody.

The inmate, who was suffering a mental health crisis, died after a use of force incident where he was left in a prone position while restrained.

The Employer alleged the complainants failed to properly supervise staff and breached policies regarding the use of restraints and spit hoods.

The Grievance Board found that while both complainants made errors in judgment and breached certain policies, their actions were not premeditated and reflected a failure in performance rather than intentional misconduct.

The Board concluded that termination was an excessive penalty for both employees, reinstating one without compensation and remitting the other's penalty to the parties.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the complainant's complaint regarding her dismissal for cause, arguing it was filed prematurely under Regulation 378/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The employer contended the 30-day dispute resolution period had not expired when the complaint was filed.

The Board applied the modern principle of statutory interpretation and found that the dispute resolution period ended on the date the complainant reasonably understood based on the employer's communications.

The Board concluded the complaint was filed in a timely manner and dismissed the employer's preliminary objection.

The complainant challenged the employer's refusal to grant his request to exit the Ontario Public Service with enhanced severance benefits under the Voluntary Exit Program (VEP).

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the VEP was not an existing term or condition of employment.

The Public Service Grievance Board agreed, finding that the VEP announcement was a pre-contractual representation and did not become a binding term of employment until an application was approved.

The Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the fairness of the decision-making process or to create new terms of employment, and dismissed the complaint.

This is a costs endorsement following the Court of Appeal's decision on an appeal of a wrongful dismissal case.

The appellant insurance company sought to reduce the respondent employee's damages by challenging the reasonable notice period and bonus entitlements.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reducing the notice period but dismissing other arguments.

The respondent sought clarification on bonus entitlements and the parties exchanged submissions on costs.

The Court declined to entertain new arguments raised by the appellant at the costs stage and awarded costs to the respondent.

A senior vice president with 37 years of service was terminated without cause following a minor dispute over promotional sporting event tickets.

The motion judge awarded 30 months' notice and full bonus entitlements during the notice period.

On appeal, the employer challenged both the notice period and the bonus entitlement.

The Court of Appeal reduced the notice period to 24 months, finding no exceptional circumstances warranting a longer period.

However, the court upheld the bonus entitlement, finding that while the termination provision in the bonus plans was unambiguous and would have limited the employee's entitlement, the provision was unenforceable because it was not properly communicated to the employee by the employer.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful appeal by the defendants.

The appellants were entitled to costs on a full indemnity basis for the motion and proceedings below, with Corus Entertainment Inc. awarded $30,000 and the McSloy appellants awarded $30,000, both inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

On the appeal itself, the appellants were successful and entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis, with Corus awarded $15,000 and the McSloy appellants awarded $15,000, both inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The request for damages under section 137.1(9) of the Courts of Justice Act was denied.

The complainant, a Sergeant with 26 years of service, was terminated for fabricating and submitting false receipts for relocation expenses.

The complainant admitted to creating some receipts and his spouse created others, which included forged signatures and appropriated business names.

The complainant claimed he was following advice to create a 'paper trail' for cash payments to individuals who were not registered businesses.

The Public Service Grievance Board found the complainant's actions were deliberate, deceitful, and motivated by a sense of entitlement to maximum benefits rather than actual expenses incurred.

Given the complainant's failure to take responsibility and his lack of candour during the investigation and hearing, the Board concluded the employment relationship was irreparably severed and upheld the termination.

An incumbent city councillor sued his political opponent and members of her campaign team, along with a local radio station, for defamation arising from statements made during a municipal election campaign.

The defendant candidate had referenced the plaintiff's dated sexual assault conviction and characterized it as consistent with a pattern of bullying and intimidation.

The motion judge dismissed the defendants' motion to dismiss under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed all claims, finding that the defendants' expressions related to a matter of public interest and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient harm to outweigh the public interest in protecting freedom of expression during an election campaign.

The plaintiff, a 62-year-old senior vice-president with 37 years of service, was terminated without cause.

On a motion for partial summary judgment, the court awarded a 30-month notice period, finding exceptional circumstances due to his age, tenure, and lack of comparable employment opportunities.

The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to full bonus payments under the company's Long Term and Short Term Incentive Plans during the notice period, as the forfeiture clauses were not properly communicated, were ambiguous, and violated the Employment Standards Act.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's Notice of Proposal to refuse his registration as a real estate salesperson.

His previous registration was revoked in 2014 due to professional misconduct.

Under section 17 of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, the appellant was required to demonstrate a material change in circumstances to reapply.

While the Tribunal accepted evidence from the appellant's family and a psychologist that he had made positive personal and lifestyle changes, it found this insufficient to prove he could transfer these changes to a high-pressure real estate work environment.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The employer requested disclosure of Crown Brief records in a related criminal matter for use in a grievance arbitration.

On consent of the parties, the Public Service Grievance Board ordered the Crown to disclose specific statements from the Crown Brief to the employer's counsel, subject to the Wagg screening process.

The Board further ordered that the records be shared with the employee's counsel and sealed from the public record pursuant to the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.