Employment and Labour Law

The appellant commenced an action to enforce Minutes of Settlement regarding the termination of his employment.

He then commenced a second action against his employer and its principal based on the underlying conduct.

The motion judge dismissed the second action as an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the Minutes of Settlement and final release governed the parties' relationship and the underlying conduct was no longer relevant.

The appellants, two Dutch companies, appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their motion to set aside service ex juris and stay the wrongful dismissal action against them.

The Court of Appeal applied the Van Breda test and found that the Ontario courts had jurisdiction over both foreign defendants.

The court held that the foreign parent company was a necessary and proper party and that the foreign foundation holding the employee's shares had a real and substantial connection to Ontario because it withheld the share sale proceeds to the potential benefit of the North American subsidiaries' counterclaim.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that the respondent, a real estate sales agent who sold homes exclusively for the appellant for 18 years, was an employee entitled to 18 months' notice of termination.

The appellant argued the respondent was a dependent contractor.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the existence of an intermediate 'dependent contractor' category but upheld the trial judge's finding that the respondent was an employee based on the Sagaz/Belton factors.

The court also upheld the finding that the respondent was not required to mitigate her damages by accepting a temporary employment offer from the appellant, as the employment relationship had been irreparably damaged.

The appellant employer appealed a wrongful dismissal decision awarding the respondent 24 months' severance and two months' Wallace damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the respondent was a 23-year employee despite a two-year gap for maternity reasons.

However, applying Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, the Court set aside the Wallace damages because the respondent's mental distress did not qualify for compensatory damages.

The Court also corrected a double-counting error regarding Employment Standards Act severance pay.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellants, a school principal, teacher, and secretary, appealed a decision dismissing their motion to dismiss the respondent teacher's action for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellants argued the dispute's essential character was covered by a collective agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the alleged conduct—including complaints to police, the Children's Aid Society, and the dissemination of false information—was not anchored in the performance of teaching duties and thus not limited to the collective agreement's remedies.

The appellants, representing unionized and non-unionized former employees of Nortel, appealed a decision dismissing their motions for directions to compel Nortel to pay severance, termination, and retirement benefits during its CCAA restructuring.

The appellants argued that the payments were protected under s. 11.3(a) of the CCAA as compensation for ongoing services, and that the CCAA stay could not override provincial Employment Standards Act obligations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that the payments were for past services and that the doctrine of federal paramountcy allowed the CCAA stay to suspend the immediate payment obligations under the provincial legislation to facilitate the restructuring.

The employee was terminated from his position as CFO but agreed to the assignment of his employment contract to an affiliated company within the corporate group.

The trial judge found that the contract was terminated and awarded the employee two years' severance pay.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in law by concluding the contract was terminated rather than assigned, and by reversing the burden of proof regarding an alleged forbearance agreement.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the severance award, and the employee's cross-appeal for negligent misrepresentation against the individual defendant was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Board of Arbitration decision finding it had discriminated against a unionized security officer.

The employer had stopped offering the employee temporary management shifts after she attended a union convention.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining the standard of review was patent unreasonableness.

The Court found the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement's anti-discrimination clause was logical and rational.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant, a senior labour relations employee for the City of Hamilton, appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action.

The trial judge found that the appellant engaged in personal and sexual harassment of a colleague, as well as retaliation, conflicts of interest, abuse of authority, and insubordination.

The Court of Appeal applied the contextual approach from McKinley v. BC Tel and upheld the trial judge's conclusion that the cumulative effect of the appellant's misconduct, particularly given his senior role and responsibility for workplace policies, justified his termination without notice.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants were employed in the respondent's Information Technology Services Group.

The respondent outsourced this group to CGI, transferring assets and employees.

CGI recognized the employees' seniority for statutory and common law purposes.

The appellants sued the respondent for severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA), arguing the transaction was not a 'sale of a business' under s. 9 because it did not transfer a 'going concern'.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the 'going concern' test from labour relations law does not apply to the ESA, which requires a broad interpretation to protect individual employment rights.

The appellants, former employees receiving pensions under the Bank of Canada Pension Plan, brought a proposed class action alleging the Bank improperly extracted funds from the Plan to cover administration costs.

The Bank successfully moved under Rule 21 to strike the claim for direct distribution of the extracted funds to class members and obtained a declaration that the action could not proceed under the Class Proceedings Act due to s. 37(a).

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the direct distribution claim, finding that restitution to the Plan was the appropriate equitable remedy.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, holding that s. 37(a) does not preclude the action from being brought as a class proceeding simply because it could be brought as a representative proceeding under Rule 10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident during the course of his employment and applied for workers' compensation benefits.

He subsequently elected to proceed with a civil action against the responsible third party.

His employer's long-term disability insurer denied his claim for benefits, arguing he was no longer entitled after his election.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant satisfied the policy's condition precedent by applying for workers' compensation benefits and was therefore entitled to long-term disability benefits.

However, the insurer was entitled to reduce the monthly benefit by the amount of workers' compensation benefits the appellant would have received had he not elected to sue.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their negligence claims against the respondent employer.

The claims arose from the employment of one of the appellants and alleged failure to provide a safe working environment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the tort claims as framed were barred by the Workers Compensation Act, though noting that any wrongful dismissal claim could proceed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that an agreement with the respondent was not unconscionable and that he could not use a customer list to solicit clients after terminating their relationship.

The respondents cross-appealed the findings that a non-compete clause was unenforceable and that the appellant was not a fiduciary.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on all issues.

The court awarded costs of $7,500 to the respondent.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action against his employer and union for conspiracy and collusion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the essential character of the dispute arose from the collective agreement.

Applying the Weber principle and the Labour Relations Act, the court held it lacked jurisdiction over the claims.

The court noted the appellant's proper recourse was to file an unfair representation complaint with the labour board.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment holding them liable as directors for unpaid wages owed to the respondent employees following the company's bankruptcy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of two directors, finding that the employees' agreement to postpone payment until the company was in funds ended upon bankruptcy, making the debts payable.

However, the Court allowed the appeal of a third director, finding that the action against him was commenced beyond the six-month limitation period under the Business Corporations Act following his resignation.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award and a decision of the Ontario Police Arbitration Commission.

The arbitrator had dismissed a grievance regarding the inclusion of cadet service in the calculation of 'continuous active service' for a seniority premium, finding he lacked jurisdiction to define the term as the parties had not yet done so.

The Commission subsequently refused to appoint a conciliation officer, finding no notice to bargain had been given for the current collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining the standard of review for the arbitration award was patent unreasonableness and for the Commission's decision was reasonableness.

The Court found neither decision met the threshold for intervention and dismissed both applications for judicial review.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that granted part-time nurses overtime pay for regularly scheduled Saturday shifts.

The arbitrator had found that Saturday work fell outside the normal work week defined in the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and concluded that the arbitrator's interpretation was rationally supported by the language of the agreement.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that the departure of a 'key man' to the applicant company constituted a sale of a business under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review, noting the Board's specialized expertise and the strong privative clauses in the Act.

The Court found there was evidence to support the Board's factual findings and dismissed the application for judicial review, awarding costs to the respondent unions.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory injunction granted by Lederman J., which included the re-instatement of the plaintiff's employment based on a finding of a serious issue of oppression.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision and noting that the re-instatement of employment, while rare, was within the judge's discretion under the oppression remedy.

The court also held that the failure to provide an undertaking did not automatically preclude the injunction and that no principle of broad importance was involved to justify granting leave.