Employment and Labour Law

The plaintiff sought approval of a $22.25 million settlement in a class action alleging unpaid overtime by the defendant trucking company.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable given the significant risks of proving systemic liability and the range of damages calculated by experts.

The court also approved a $10,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff and class counsel's 30% contingency fee, noting that while third-party funding arrangements must now be considered in assessing legal fees under the amended Class Proceedings Act, it would not retroactively adjust fees in this case.

The plaintiff, a 47-year-old Director of Marketing and Communication, sued for wrongful dismissal after his employment was terminated without cause after nearly three years of service.

The court found the termination clause in his employment agreement void under the Employment Standards Act.

Considering the Bardal factors and the negative impact of the global pandemic on the plaintiff's ability to secure alternate employment, the court awarded 10 months' reasonable notice.

Claims for bad faith damages regarding a damaged USB stick were dismissed, and the court found no failure to mitigate.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for long-term disability benefits on the basis that the plaintiff failed to submit a formal application for benefits.

The court found that the failure to submit a formal claim amounted to imperfect compliance rather than non-compliance, as the defendant had already adjudicated and denied the plaintiff's short-term disability claim and had notice of the long-term disability claim via a completed physician questionnaire.

The court granted the plaintiff relief from forfeiture, finding that the defendant suffered no substantial prejudice, and dismissed the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion for an interlocutory compliance order and restraining orders against a unit owner and its principals/agents.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants engaged in a multi-year pattern of threatening, abusive, and harassing behaviour towards the board of directors, property management, and other unit owners, including threats of litigation and physical intimidation.

The court found that the defendants' conduct violated section 117 of the Condominium Act, constituted workplace harassment under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and was oppressive under section 135 of the Condominium Act.

The court granted interlocutory orders restraining the defendants from further harassment and from soliciting proxies.

The plaintiffs, a group of unionized and non-unionized hospital employees, sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant employer from enforcing a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy that threatened termination of employment.

The court dissolved a previously granted interim injunction.

For the unionized employees, the court held that the essential character of the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labour arbitration process under the collective agreements, and declined to exercise its residual jurisdiction to grant interim relief where the unions had carriage of the grievances and had not sought such relief.

For the non-unionized employees, the court found no irreparable harm, as monetary damages would be an adequate remedy if their employment was wrongfully terminated.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused at an examination for discovery.

The refused questions sought production of an external law firm's unredacted fee accounts, investigation file, and unredacted board meeting minutes.

The defendants claimed solicitor-client privilege over the documents.

The court found that the law firm was retained to provide legal advice, making the investigation file privileged.

The court also held that the defendants did not waive privilege by producing the investigation report or by referring to the investigation in the plaintiff's termination letter.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, employees of the University Health Network, brought an urgent motion for an interim injunction to prevent their termination for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine.

The defendants raised significant jurisdictional issues, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction over unionized employees.

The court granted a short-term interim order preserving the status quo for the named plaintiffs and specific individuals until a proper hearing on the jurisdictional issues could take place, noting the potential for irreparable harm if the employees were compelled to take the vaccine against their will.

The plaintiff, a volunteer fire captain and administrative assistant, was terminated without cause by the municipality's CAO based on unfounded, sexist rumours and gossip.

The court found the termination was conducted in bad faith and was tainted by patent gender-based discrimination.

The CAO also made defamatory statements about the plaintiff to the municipal council, which lost the protection of qualified privilege due to malice.

The court awarded the plaintiff six months' reasonable notice, $75,000 in moral damages, $35,000 for Human Rights Code violations, $20,000 for defamation, and $60,000 in punitive damages.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to shut down or restrict a competing deli opened by two former long-term employees.

The plaintiff argued the employees were fiduciaries.

The court found the employees were managers but not fiduciaries, as they lacked strategic authority and the employer was not peculiarly vulnerable to their departure.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the defendants and damages would be an adequate remedy.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a former employee of the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC), sued TCHC, several individual TCHC employees, the City of Toronto, and the City Ombudsman for wrongful dismissal and intentional infliction of mental suffering following an investigation into TCHC's eviction practices.

The Ombudsman Defendants and the individual TCHC Defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim.

The court granted the Ombudsman Defendants' motion, finding the claim against them was an abuse of process and barred by absolute privilege under the City of Toronto Act.

The court dismissed the individual TCHC Defendants' motion, finding it was arguable that the limitation period for the intentional infliction of mental suffering claim did not begin to run until the plaintiff was dismissed, as a proceeding would not have been an appropriate remedy before that time.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendant argued that its failure to defend the action was solely due to the negligence of its former lawyer, who failed to act despite instructions.

The court applied the test for setting aside a default judgment and found that the defendant moved promptly upon learning of the default, had a plausible explanation for the default, and raised an arguable defence on the merits regarding cause for termination and damages.

The court granted the motion to set aside the default judgment but ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's substantial indemnity costs incurred due to the default.

The plaintiff, an insurance broker, brought an action for wrongful and constructive dismissal against his former employer.

The defendant employer argued that the plaintiff had voluntarily retired and was an independent contractor.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence to be less credible than the defendant's and a third-party witness, concluding that the plaintiff had indeed voluntarily retired as he had previously announced.

The court also determined that the plaintiff was an employee, not an independent contractor, but dismissed the action entirely based on the finding of voluntary retirement.

The plaintiffs, a commercial real estate broker and his company, brought an action against the defendant brokerage firm seeking a declaration that their independent contractor agreement was terminated without cause, thereby forgiving a $225,000 loan.

The defendant counterclaimed for repayment of the loan, alleging the plaintiff terminated the agreement or was terminated for default.

The court rectified the agreement to include a mistakenly omitted provision regarding the plaintiff's leadership role and analyzed the interpretation of the plaintiff's role as the Ottawa Practice Lead for investments, finding that no strict $10 million ceiling was placed on the plaintiff's transactions.

The plaintiff, a dental office employee of 7.5 years, sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without notice.

The defendant dentists alleged just cause, claiming the plaintiff falsified work hours and manipulated surveillance cameras.

The court found no reliable evidence of fraud or dishonesty, concluding the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed.

The court awarded 8 months' pay in lieu of notice but declined to award aggravated or punitive damages, finding the employer's conduct during termination was not unduly insensitive or in bad faith.

The defendant employer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff employee's action for constructive dismissal.

The plaintiff alleged she was constructively dismissed due to a unilateral change in her employment contract, improper deductions of vacation pay, and a poisoned work environment involving sexual harassment.

The court found that the new employment contract was valid as it was supported by consideration and reasonable working notice.

While the employer improperly deducted $3,763 in vacation pay, this minor breach did not amount to constructive dismissal.

The court also dismissed the allegations of sexual harassment and a poisoned work environment, finding the plaintiff voluntarily resigned.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the defendant, save for an order that the defendant repay the improperly deducted vacation pay.

The plaintiff, a former probationary employee of the defendant, sued for negligence and breach of a duty of good faith after the defendant failed to fully complete a verification of experience form required for the plaintiff to obtain a nursing license in the Northwest Territories.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the employment contract had been terminated during the probationary period and there was no recognized duty of care requiring a former employer to provide a reference or complete such forms.

The statement of claim was struck with leave to amend.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside ex parte Anton Piller and Mareva orders obtained by the plaintiff employer in an action for fraud.

The plaintiff alleged that its former employee and his wife used a shell company to secretly mark up the prices of electronic components purchased from Chinese suppliers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had made full and fair disclosure of material facts when obtaining the orders.

The court also held that the evidence justified the continuation of both orders, as there was a strong prima facie case of fraud, a risk of destruction of evidence, and a risk of dissipation of assets.

The defendant City of Toronto brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal claim against it, arguing it was not the plaintiff's employer.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to amend her statement of claim to plead that the City was a common employer with the co-defendant child care centre.

The court found that the plaintiff's pleadings, even if amended, consisted of bald, conclusory allegations lacking material facts to support a common employer relationship under either the common law or the Employment Standards Act.

The court granted the City's motion to strike, denied the plaintiff's motion to amend, and dismissed the action against the City.