Andrew F. Camman

The plaintiff corporation brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that an associate dentist breached an Associate Agreement and a permanent injunction.

The dispute arose from the termination of the associate's arrangement with the plaintiff and another principal dentist at a dental clinic, and the associate's subsequent agreement to purchase the other principal dentist's practice.

The responding parties argued that the Associate Agreement was subject to an overarching Practice Agreement and that the plaintiff's termination was not in good faith.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly regarding the common law duty of honest performance in contracts and the advisability of partial summary judgment in the context of the litigation as a whole.

The complainant sought an order directing the employer to pay a revised amount under their Minutes of Settlement to reflect a retroactive pay increase awarded to her former job class.

The employer argued the settlement amount was fixed and the agreement precluded further compensation.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the motion, finding it lacked equitable jurisdiction to amend the clear and express terms of the negotiated settlement agreement.

The plaintiff was seriously injured when attacked by a rival gang member in a provincial jail.

The plaintiff sued Ontario and others, alleging that a correctional officer was negligent in placing the plaintiff and the assailant in the same unit despite the jail's policy of separating members of the same gang.

The trial judge found for the plaintiff.

On appeal, Ontario argued that the policy negated any duty of care and that the trial judge erred in applying the standard of care and finding causation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the policy did not negate the common law duty of care, that the correctional officer breached the standard of care by failing to consider inmate incompatibility, and that the negligence caused the plaintiff's injuries.

The plaintiff sued his former employer and a disability insurer for long-term disability benefits after suffering a stroke shortly after his termination.

In his reply to the employer's statement of defence, the plaintiff claimed wrongful dismissal.

The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing the reply raised a new, statute-barred cause of action.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the statement of claim's factual matrix provided sufficient notice of the wrongful dismissal claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the employer's appeal, agreeing that the wrongful dismissal claim was not a new cause of action and came as no surprise to the employer.

The plaintiff, an inmate and member of the Malvern Crew street gang, was severely beaten by a rival gang member while housed at the Don Jail.

He sued the Crown in negligence for placing him in the same unit as the rival gang member.

The court found that the Crown owed a duty of care and breached it by failing to consider inmate compatibility when applying its numeric balancing policy for housing gang members.

The Crown knew or ought to have known of the severe security threat posed by the rival gang member.

The court found the Crown liable for the assault, but reduced the damages by 15% due to the plaintiff's contributory negligence in failing to request protective custody.

The complainant requested disclosure of documents in the employer's custody, to which the employer agreed.

The parties sought an order from the Public Service Grievance Board regarding the disclosure.

The Board ordered that the disclosed documents be used solely for the litigation, not be disseminated to unauthorized persons, and be returned at the conclusion of the litigation, subject to counsel's retention of their litigation file.

Four employees of the respondent sought reconsideration of a Tribunal order reinstating the applicant to his former position as Manager of Emergency Medical Services.

The employees, who had testified about the applicant's workplace harassment, argued that his return would cause them significant mental health consequences.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the employees lacked standing as they were not parties to the proceeding.

The Tribunal also declined to reconsider the decision on its own initiative, noting that the employees' concerns were addressed at the original hearing and that the reinstatement order included conditions to repair workplace relationships.

The defendant employer moved for summary judgment seeking to strike portions of the reply, bar amendment of the statement of claim, and dismiss the action on the basis that the reply advanced a new wrongful dismissal cause of action outside the limitation period.

The court applied the broader, factually-oriented and purposive approach to whether a pleading asserts a new cause of action, focusing on whether the original statement of claim gave notice of the factual matrix.

The court held that the claim for loss of disability benefits arising from termination was already grounded in the pleaded employment relationship, termination, disability, and alleged breach of the employment contract.

The reply merely answered the defence allegation of termination for misconduct and did not take the employer by surprise.

The summary judgment motion was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and creed, including harassment regarding time off for religious observances.

During the hearing, after the applicant's testimony, the respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application at this stage, finding it necessary to hear the evidence of the respondent's witnesses.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex.

The Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests from both parties.

The applicant's request for a third extension of time to respond to the respondent's request for particulars was denied, and she was ordered to provide particulars linking her allegations to a Code ground.

The applicant was permitted to amend her application to include specific monetary claims.

Finally, the applicant's request to adjourn the hearing because she had recently retained a representative was denied, as this did not constitute exceptional circumstances under the Tribunal's rules.

Following trial, the plaintiffs recovered $18,645 against a home inspector for failing to report a sloping kitchen floor but were unsuccessful on their principal claim alleging differential settlement of the residence.

The plaintiffs sought full indemnity costs exceeding $139,000, while the defendant argued that costs should be denied or awarded in its favour because the recovery fell within the Small Claims Court jurisdiction and because the plaintiffs failed on the major issue at trial.

The court held that it was reasonable for the plaintiffs to have pursued the action under the ordinary procedure and declined to deny costs under Rules 57.05(1) or 76.13.

However, given the plaintiffs’ lack of success on the central issue and proportionality considerations, their costs were substantially reduced.

Expert disbursements were disallowed and a global costs award was fixed with a set‑off for the defendant’s mid‑trial motion costs.

The plaintiffs purchased a home and subsequently discovered foundation settlement and a sloping kitchen floor.

They sued their home inspector for negligence, alleging failure to identify and report structural defects.

The court found that while the inspector was not negligent regarding the sub-surface soil conditions and differential settlement, he breached the standard of care by failing to effectively report the significant slope in the kitchen floor in his written report.

The plaintiffs were awarded $18,645 in damages for the cost to level the kitchen floor.

The complainant requested certain particulars and the production of documents in an arbitration under the Public Service Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted the request, subject to conditions that the disclosed material be used solely for the litigation, not be disseminated further without an order, and be returned at the conclusion of the proceedings.

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

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

The Tribunal dismissed all allegations prior to February 2009 as untimely.

It also dismissed the reprisal allegations, finding that whistleblowing is not protected under the Code.

The allegations against the union were dismissed for lack of evidence of differential treatment.

The only surviving issue was the employer's alleged failure to accommodate the applicant's back disability in 2010, which was deferred pending a union grievance.

The applicant, an employee with a disability resulting from workplace injuries, alleged discrimination on the basis of age and disability after her employer discontinued a temporary modified work arrangement and placed her on an unpaid medical leave.

The Tribunal dismissed the age discrimination claim for lack of evidence.

Regarding disability, the Tribunal found that the employer met both its procedural and substantive duty to accommodate.

The applicant was unable to perform the essential duties of her position, and the employer was not required to permanently bundle tasks or assign essential duties to other employees to create a new position.

The parties resolved the matter in terms of a settlement agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal without costs in accordance with the settlement.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a finding of guilt for insubordination after failing to comply with an order from the Chief of Police to provide information regarding his secondary employment in a home construction company.

The appellant argued that the order was unlawful because it requested personal and corporate tax records.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Chief's order was lawful as it was issued for the public purpose of investigating compliance with the Police Services Act.

The Commission held that the appellant had a duty to respond to the lawful portions of the order and that relying on legal advice did not provide a lawful excuse for his failure to comply.

The applicant, a 49-year-old municipal employee with 26 years of service, alleged age discrimination when a younger candidate was selected over him for an Arena Manager position.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the respondent provided a rational, non-discriminatory explanation that the successful candidate was more qualified due to recent management courses and better interview performance.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent's emphasis on educational qualifications was not a pretext for age discrimination and dismissed the application.

The appellant seized collateral from a third party who had purchased it from the debtor, arguing its security interest attached upon possession under s. 11(2)(b) of the Personal Property Security Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the seizure did not constitute possession sufficient for attachment under s. 11(1) to defeat the third party's interests, as the appellant did not have a signed security agreement prior to the seizure.

The grievor, an Operational Manager at a jail, was discharged after being charged with criminal harassment for off-duty conduct involving observing a former partner's house with binoculars.

He was also discharged for failing to fully cooperate with an internal investigation under s. 22 of the Ministry of Correctional Services Act, having refused to answer certain questions on the advice of counsel.

The grievor was later acquitted of the criminal charges.

The Board found that the grievor did not have a Charter right to remain silent during the administrative investigation, but his limited participation did not amount to a disciplinable failure to cooperate under the circumstances.

While the off-duty conduct warranted some discipline due to its impact on the employer's reputation, discharge was excessive given the acquittal, his long service, and the lack of proven intimidatory intent.

The Board substituted a 15-day suspension and ordered reinstatement with compensation from the date of acquittal.