Employment and Labour Law

The defendants' counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record shortly before a scheduled wrongful dismissal trial.

The plaintiff opposed any adjournment of the trial date but did not oppose the removal of counsel.

The court granted the motion to remove counsel due to a breakdown in the relationship and lack of instructions following a corporate acquisition.

However, the court refused to adjourn the trial date, finding that the corporate defendant had ignored the approaching trial and that an adjournment would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff.

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 59.06 to vary an interlocutory injunction that prohibited him from competing with or soliciting customers of the responding party.

The court found that the responding party had failed to pursue their case with reasonable dispatch, as pleadings were not yet closed 15 months after the injunction was granted.

Furthermore, the contractual non-competition and non-solicitation periods in the Professional Services Agreement had already expired.

The court granted the motion in part, terminating the non-competition and non-solicitation obligations against the moving party personally.

The plaintiff, a tire technician, sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal and discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code, alleging he was terminated because of his drug addiction.

The court found that the employer had accommodated the plaintiff's addiction and that the termination was instead the result of cumulative insubordination, workplace harassment, and a refusal to cooperate in a workplace violence investigation.

The human rights claim was dismissed.

However, because the employer chose to terminate without cause rather than for cause, the court awarded the plaintiff 2.5 months of reasonable notice, less the two weeks already paid under the Employment Standards Act, totaling $5,808.00.

Following the dismissal of the union's application for an interim injunction against the employer's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, the employer sought partial indemnity costs of $34,146.11.

The union argued no costs should be awarded as the matter was of public interest and novel concern, or alternatively that costs should be capped at $10,000.

The court rejected the novelty argument, finding existing case law was adequate to resolve the issue.

After considering the factors under Rule 57.01, including the importance of the issues, the urgent timeline, and reasonable expectations, the court fixed costs at $27,000 payable by the union.

The applicant unions sought interim injunctions to restrain the respondent employers from enforcing mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies pending the outcome of labour arbitrations.

The court dismissed the Sinai application on the basis that the labour arbitration process provided an adequate alternative remedy, precluding the exercise of the court's residual jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the TTC application on the merits of the injunction test, finding that the loss of employment or income did not constitute irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the employer's obligation to protect public health and workplace safety.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

Prior to the motion, the defendant accepted the plaintiff's Rule 49 offer to settle, resolving all issues except costs.

The court issued an endorsement setting a timetable for written costs submissions and remained seized of the matter.

The plaintiffs sued two former employees for breach of employment agreements, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied duties of loyalty and good faith, and conversion after they left to work for a competitor.

The court found that the non-competition clauses in the employment agreements were ambiguous and overly broad, and therefore unenforceable.

The court also found that the employees were not fiduciaries.

While one employee breached his implied duty of loyalty and his obligation to safeguard confidential information by forwarding company documents to his personal email and doing work for a competitor while still employed, the plaintiffs failed to prove that these breaches caused any damages.

The action was dismissed against one employee, and the other was ordered to pay $1 in nominal damages.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the plaintiff amended their statement of claim against individual directors under s. 248 of the OBCA following a Court of Appeal decision.

The defendants brought a second motion to strike the amended claim, arguing it remained deficient.

At a case conference, the court determined it could not resolve the issue on a limited record and scheduled the defendants' motion to strike for a later date, while encouraging the parties to proceed with discovery and mediation.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action requested a case conference to schedule examinations for discovery and mediation, citing unresponsiveness from the defendant's counsel.

The court found the request premature and inappropriate, as the plaintiff had not yet delivered a sworn Affidavit of Documents or a Notice of Examination for Discovery.

The court declined to schedule the discoveries, directed the parties to utilize the Rules of Civil Procedure, and awarded $250 in costs to the defendant for the unnecessary case conference.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action requested a case conference to schedule dates for discovery and mediation after the defendant delayed proceedings due to internal HR turnover.

The court established a litigation timetable, ordering examinations for discovery to be completed by January 14, 2022, and mediation by February 4, 2022.

The plaintiff, an internet marketing company, brought an urgent motion for an interim injunction, a Mareva injunction, and a Certificate of Pending Litigation against two former employees and a related corporation.

The plaintiff alleged the former employees breached non-competition and non-solicitation clauses by operating a competing business and misappropriating confidential information.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case or irreparable harm, as the evidence connecting the defendants to the competing business was largely circumstantial and speculative.

The requests for asset-freezing relief and a Certificate of Pending Litigation were also dismissed due to insufficient evidence of asset dissipation or illicit funding.

The plaintiff employee brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action under the Simplified Procedure.

The defendant employer alleged just cause for termination based on performance and behavioural issues.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding cause, as the employer failed to provide sufficient evidence of misconduct warranting summary dismissal, and set the reasonable notice period at 14 months.

However, because the Simplified Procedure prevented cross-examination on affidavits, the court found a genuine issue regarding mitigation of damages and the value of lost benefits, ordering a minitrial to resolve those specific issues.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to amend her Statement of Claim, add new party defendants, compel further documentary production, and compel additional examinations for discovery in her wrongful dismissal action.

The court found the proposed 85-page amended pleading to be replete with evidence, irrelevant arguments, and inflammatory attacks, violating the rules of pleading.

The motion was dismissed in its entirety as frivolous, scandalous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The parties were ordered to proceed to mediation and then examinations for discovery.

Following a default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action where the plaintiff was awarded damages for salary in lieu of notice, the court addressed the remaining claims for vacation pay and costs.

The plaintiff abandoned the claim for loss of benefits.

The court awarded $464.56 for vacation pay over the statutory notice period and fixed costs at $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff commenced an action for constructive dismissal against her former employer.

The defendants moved to stay the action under Rule 21.01(3) and s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, relying on an arbitration clause in the plaintiff's employment agreement.

The plaintiff argued the arbitration clause was invalid, unconscionable, and contracted out of minimum employment standards.

Applying the competence-competence principle, the court held that the arbitral tribunal must first determine the validity of the arbitration clause.

The action was stayed pending the arbitrator's determination of the jurisdictional challenge.

The applicant sought to quash a resolution adopted by the City of Toronto directing negotiations for a Voluntary Recognition Agreement with a specific union.

The applicant argued the resolution was discriminatory and created an unlawful monopoly.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the City has the authority under the City of Toronto Act, 2006 to manage its labour relations and pass bylaws respecting its construction projects.

The court noted that the validity of any resulting agreement would be a matter for the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The respondent, a not-for-profit corporation, brought a motion for an injunction requiring the applicants, former employees, to return allegedly misappropriated confidential documents and restraining their further use.

The respondent also sought a sealing order for the court file.

The applicants argued they were whistleblowers exposing corporate wrongdoing.

The court dismissed the motion for an injunction, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the respondent failed to establish it would suffer irreparable harm.

The court also dismissed the request for a sealing order, concluding it was not necessary to prevent a serious risk to an important interest and that the public interest in open court proceedings outweighed the benefits of confidentiality.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 25.11 to strike portions of the defendant's statement of defence in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff sought to strike allegations of performance issues, arguing they were irrelevant as the termination was without cause, and allegations of a settlement offer.

The court agreed, finding the performance issues were not tied to the bonus claim as argued by the defendant, and that pleading a settlement offer or a 'reasonable termination arrangement' was irrelevant and improper.

The motion was granted and the offending paragraphs were struck.