Employment and Labour Law

The respondent and the appellant entered into an oral agreement to share ownership of a carrageenan business, with the respondent holding a 40 per cent interest.

The business was incorporated, but no shares were ever issued to the respondent.

After a falling out, the respondent brought an application for an oppression remedy and wrongful dismissal.

The application judge found the respondent was a beneficial owner and awarded substantial compensation and damages for wrongful dismissal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the findings of liability, confirming that the respondent was a proper complainant under the Business Corporations Act, but slightly reduced the compensation award.

The appellants, former employees of a bankrupt company, sought severance and termination pay from related companies under s. 4 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the companies were related, the relationship did not have the intent or effect of defeating the purpose of the Act, as the related companies had actually propped up the bankrupt company.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision as reasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the standard of review is reasonableness and the Board's decision fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The employer appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of an arbitral award.

The board of arbitration had ruled that the employer's policy of random drug testing for safety-sensitive employees, absent reasonable cause, violated the collective agreement's requirement to treat employees with dignity and respect.

The Court of Appeal held that while the Divisional Court erred in applying the patent unreasonableness standard instead of reasonableness, the board's decision was reasonable.

The board did not err by referencing the 'Canadian model' of arbitral jurisprudence, nor did it improperly rely on facts outside the record or amend the collective agreement.

The appellant employee suffered a mental breakdown and sued her employer for negligent infliction of mental suffering and negligent supervision, following a period of workplace restructuring, denial of a promotion, and disciplinary actions for absenteeism.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the employer's actions were reasonable responses to declining performance and that the employer was unaware of the employee's mental illness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that even if a free-standing tort of negligent infliction of mental suffering exists in the employment context, the trial judge's factual findings precluded liability.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision enforcing a settlement agreement.

The appellant argued that the timing of an $80,000 payment and a letter of reference were essential terms not agreed upon.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the timing of payment was peripheral to the contract's formation, and refusing to hear the letter of reference issue as it was not raised below.

The appellant was dismissed without cause and entered into a pre-litigation settlement agreement with the respondent.

After the appellant commenced a wrongful dismissal action, the respondent successfully moved for summary judgment to enforce the settlement under Rule 49.09.

The appellant's subsequent appeals and motions to set aside the judgment were dismissed.

The appellant then argued that the original order was a nullity because Rule 49.09 does not apply to pre-litigation settlements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the original motions judge had jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, and any error in the method of enforcement did not render the decision a nullity.

The appellant was acquitted of Occupational Health and Safety Act charges at trial.

The Crown successfully appealed to the Provincial Offences Appeal Court, where the appeal judge permitted the Crown to rely on a new theory of liability regarding supervisor status and raised additional dispositive issues on her own motion without allowing submissions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appellant's appeal, holding that it is improper for the Crown to advance a new theory of liability on an appeal against acquittal, and that the appellant was denied a fair hearing when the appeal judge decided the case on unargued grounds.

A new hearing was ordered.

The appellants, former commercial insurance salespeople for the respondent, resigned and joined a competitor, subsequently soliciting clients from the respondent.

The respondent successfully sued for breach of a restrictive covenant at trial.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the clause was an unenforceable non-competition clause rather than a non-solicitation clause, as it contained no geographical limit and broadly prohibited conducting business.

The appeal was allowed and the trial judgment was set aside.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash two decisions of the Information and Privacy Commissioner dismissing her complaints of privacy breaches under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The applicant argued the Commissioner had a statutory duty to investigate and adjudicate her complaints.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Commissioner's role regarding privacy complaints is advisory to the Legislature, not adjudicative.

Furthermore, the court found that the Commissioner's activities in gathering information for her annual report fall within parliamentary privilege and are not subject to judicial review.

The applicant moved to set aside the Registrar's order dismissing his application for judicial review for delay.

The applicant had filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union two years after his dismissal, which the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed for delay.

The applicant then delayed in serving his application for judicial review and adding the Board as a party.

The Divisional Court applied the three-part test from Chiu and found that while the applicant had a bona fide intention to comply, he failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

Furthermore, the justice of the case did not require an extension as the Board's decision was not patently unreasonable.

The motion was dismissed.

The Writers Guild of Canada brought an application for judicial review of a preliminary arbitration award.

The arbitrator had concluded he had jurisdiction to determine whether a grievor was an employee/dependent contractor or an independent contractor under the Status of the Artist Act.

The applicant argued the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction over this issue.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator correctly interpreted the legislation and had jurisdiction to determine the grievor's employment status as a preliminary issue of arbitrability.

The applicant police officer, facing disciplinary charges under the Police Services Act, sought judicial review of a designated hearing officer's refusal to recuse himself for reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant also sought to prohibit the Chief of Police from appointing a former police officer to preside over the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the legislative scheme allows for the appointment of retired police officers and that there was no evidence of institutional or personal bias.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award requiring it to pay the Ontario Health Premium on behalf of its employees under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review for an arbitrator interpreting a collective agreement against a statutory backdrop is patent unreasonableness.

The Court found that the arbitrator's conclusion—that the reintroduction of individual health premiums revived the employer's obligation to pay 100% of the employees' costs for OHIP—was not patently unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant nurse sought judicial review of the College of Nurses' acquisition of her occupational health and safety records from her former employer without her consent.

The employer had terminated the applicant for cause and reported incidents of professional misconduct to the College.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that while the records constituted personal health information under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, the Act expressly permitted their disclosure to the College for regulatory purposes.

Furthermore, the College's investigator had broad statutory authority under the Health Professions Procedural Code to request and examine the records.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaints of unlawful reprisal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The applicant had been suspended twice by his employer following work refusals.

The Board found the discipline was imposed for threats and engaging in an illegal work stoppage, not for raising safety concerns.

The Divisional Court applied the patently unreasonable standard of review and dismissed the application, finding no reviewable error in the Board's factual determinations.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation.

The union had negotiated mid-term amendments to a collective agreement with Loblaws to address competition from Wal-Mart, without holding a ratification vote by the general membership.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness and found that the Board's interpretation of the Labour Relations Act and its conclusion that the union acted fairly and reasonably were not patently unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving party union sought to quash the responding party employer's application for judicial review of a preliminary arbitration award on the basis of undue delay.

The employer had delayed 16 months in commencing the application and 21 months in perfecting it.

Applying the test for undue delay, the court found that while the delay was substantial, there was no actual prejudice to the union because the underlying employment relationship had ceased years prior due to bankruptcy, and the issue was a pure question of law regarding related employer status.

The motion to quash was dismissed, and the employer's cross-motion to have its application heard together with a related application was granted.

The City of Hamilton applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's award which found that the City was required to pay the Ontario Health Premium on behalf of its employees under the collective bargaining agreement.

The Divisional Court determined that the appropriate standard of review was patent unreasonableness, as the arbitrator was interpreting the collective agreement, not the legislation.

The Court found the arbitrator's conclusion that the premium constituted a 'cost' of the medicare plan under the agreement was not patently unreasonable, and would have been upheld even on a correctness standard.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

Canada Post conducted a covert video surveillance investigation into mail theft by employees.

After the investigation concluded and criminal charges were laid, Canada Post dismissed the employees caught on tape.

The union grieved the dismissals.

The arbitrator ruled that under article 10.02 of the collective agreement, Canada Post was required to give notice of alleged misconduct within ten days of identifying an employee on the videotape, and failure to do so precluded reliance on the misconduct for dismissal.

The Divisional Court dismissed Canada Post's application for judicial review.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and his factual finding on when the notice period commenced were not patently unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding his constructive dismissal claim.

The trial judge found that if the appellant had agreed to relocate to St. Catharines, his working conditions would not be substantially different from those in Simcoe.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred, as the relocation would require three hours of daily commuting and significant out-of-pocket driving costs, making the working conditions and net remuneration substantially different.

The appeal was allowed, the cross-appeal on constructive dismissal was dismissed, and a new trial was ordered to determine damages.