Employment and Labour Law

The 74-year-old plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal action after 31 years of service with the defendant construction company.

The defendant claimed the plaintiff had voluntarily retired in 2010 and was only working on an as-needed basis.

The court found no evidence of retirement and concluded the plaintiff was terminated without cause in October 2012.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded 20 months' pay in lieu of notice, finding the plaintiff was not required to mitigate by accepting a demeaning demotion to a flagman position.

The defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiff's 80-page statement of claim, which alleged wrongful dismissal and various torts against his former employer, a legal aid clinic, its funder, and various individuals.

The court struck the claims against the employer's outside counsel, the funding agency, and two individual employees without leave to amend, finding no reasonable cause of action was disclosed.

The remainder of the statement of claim against the employer and other individuals was struck for failing to comply with the rules of pleading, with leave granted to deliver a fresh as amended statement of claim.

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal and human rights violations after her employment was terminated while on maternity leave.

The defendant moved to strike a paragraph in the statement of claim alleging that the defendant had a history of terminating pregnant women under the guise of restructuring, citing a specific similar incident.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the similar fact evidence was properly pleaded, had significant probative value regarding the claims for human rights violations and punitive damages, and was not scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.

The plaintiff, a 62-year-old senior family law clerk with 27 years of service, brought a motion for summary judgment claiming wrongful dismissal.

The defendant law firm argued that the plaintiff had voluntarily resigned after a meeting regarding workplace restructuring, during which she became upset, handed in her security pass, and left the office.

The court found that the plaintiff's actions did not constitute a clear and unequivocal resignation when viewed contextually, noting her long tenure, emotional state, and the employer's failure to make further inquiries.

The court granted summary judgment on liability, finding the plaintiff did not resign, and ordered a trial of an issue for the quantum of damages.

The plaintiff, a former staff member for a Member of Parliament, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that her employment contract was valid and that the collective agreement had no legal force, arguing that the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act excluded MP staff from collective bargaining.

The defendant MP brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction due to the collective agreement's arbitration clause.

The plaintiff also sought to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim for defamation for lack of notice under the Libel and Slander Act, and to strike a paragraph referencing her counsel's political background.

The court dismissed both motions for summary judgment, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the scope of the Act and the collective agreement, and whether the defamation claim required notice.

However, the court granted the motion to strike the paragraph about the plaintiff's counsel's political background as irrelevant and vexatious.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in his wrongful dismissal and human rights claim against his former employer.

The plaintiff alleged he was terminated without cause, while the employer maintained he resigned or abandoned his position.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial due to significant conflicts in the evidence regarding the circumstances of the plaintiff's departure, his medical condition, and mitigation efforts.

The court declined to use its discretionary fact-finding powers, concluding that a fair and just determination required a full trial.

The plaintiffs sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendants, including a former shareholder and several former employees, from competing against the plaintiff company and soliciting its clients and employees.

The court found that the former shareholder breached the restrictive covenants in the unanimous shareholder agreement and his fiduciary duties by orchestrating a plan to use confidential information to divert business to a newly formed competitor.

The court applied the strong prima facie case standard for the first branch of the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the plaintiffs established a strong case, would suffer irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The court granted the injunction against the former shareholder and the former employees, enjoining them from using confidential information and competing in association with the former shareholder.

The plaintiff, a former employee of the Royal Bank of Canada in British Columbia, moved to Ontario and sought employment at an Ontario branch.

She alleged that a British Columbia-based employee defamed her to Ontario employees, resulting in the withdrawal of an employment offer and constructive dismissal.

The defendants moved to stay the action, arguing Ontario lacked jurisdiction and that British Columbia was the more convenient forum.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a presumptive connection to Ontario based on the tort of defamation occurring there, and held that the defendants failed to establish that British Columbia was a clearly more appropriate forum.

A case conference endorsement determining the scheduling and order of three pending motions in two related wrongful dismissal actions arising from mass lay-offs following the bankruptcy of several meat packing companies.

The court directed that the defendants' jurisdiction motion (the 'Weber' motion) and limitations motion be heard together first, prior to the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Following a trial for wrongful dismissal where the plaintiff was successful, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendant argued that its offers to settle should impact costs, that costs should be distributed due to the plaintiff's unsuccessful bad faith claims, and that the plaintiff should pay substantial indemnity costs for those allegations.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments, finding the offers did not meet Rule 49 requirements and the bad faith claims, while unsuccessful, were not reprehensible.

The court awarded the plaintiff $171,000 in partial indemnity costs plus disbursements.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's Order dismissing his wrongful dismissal action for delay.

The action was administratively dismissed after plaintiff's counsel failed to pass the trial record in accordance with a court-ordered timetable.

The court applied the Reid factors and found that the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the extensive litigation delay, failed to demonstrate inadvertence, and did not move promptly to set aside the dismissal.

The motion was dismissed, upholding the administrative dismissal.

The plaintiff, a 14-year employee, was terminated for failing to provide a doctor's note in a timely manner while on sick leave.

She brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal.

The court found that while the plaintiff breached a reasonable company policy, summary dismissal was a disproportionate response.

The court determined the appropriate notice period was 10 months, but reduced it to 6 months because the plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages by not seeking alternative employment for 15 months.

The court dismissed the claim for punitive and moral damages, finding the employer did not act maliciously.

The plaintiff was awarded $20,904.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class proceeding against the defendant employer for unpaid overtime.

The proposed class included non-management employees subject to the defendant's overtime policy.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed valid causes of action in breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and negligence.

The court certified the action, finding that there was an identifiable class, common issues regarding systemic practices and aggregate damages, that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and that the plaintiff was an appropriate representative.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim, which alleged a failure to provide a timely letter of reference, for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to amend the statement of claim to allege that the corporate defendant breached its policy to provide a reference.

The court allowed the amendment and dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the amended pleading sufficiently alleged a breach of the employment contract and related torts.

The plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal action against his former employer and its owners, alleging age discrimination.

The personal defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the age discrimination claims against them.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for summary judgment on the entire claim.

The court granted the personal defendants' motion, finding no employment relationship and no factual foundation for the age discrimination claim.

On the plaintiff's motion, the court found no cause for termination and that the plaintiff had mitigated his damages, leaving only the quantum of notice to be determined at a later date.

The representative plaintiff in a class action regarding pension benefits for employees transferred to Community Care Access Centres moved for settlement approval, fee approval, and an amendment to the class definition.

The plaintiff alleged the government breached a 'no loss' commitment regarding pension benefits.

The court approved the amendment to the class definition to include certain union members.

The court also approved the settlement of $752,500, providing $2,500 per class member, finding it fair and reasonable given the significant litigation risks, including a limitation period defence.

Class counsel fees up to $75,000 were also approved.

The defendant employee, accused of defrauding the plaintiff employer of over $470,000, brought a motion for further and better documentary production.

The defendant counterclaimed for unpaid loans and wrongful dismissal, alleging she was directed to make cash payments to creditors and others.

The Master granted the motion, ordering broad production of cheques, invoices, bank statements, and financial records, finding that the employer's unorthodox accounting practices and the serious nature of the fraud allegations necessitated extensive documentary discovery to allow forensic reconstruction of the financial history.

The plaintiff, a graphite mining company, sought an interlocutory injunction against two former senior executives and their new employer, a competing graphite company.

The plaintiff alleged the former employees breached their fiduciary duties, confidentiality obligations, and non-competition/non-solicitation agreements by surreptitiously securing employment with the competitor and usurping a corporate opportunity regarding a processing facility.

The court granted the injunction, finding a strong prima facie case of breach, irreparable harm due to the highly competitive nature of the industry and potential loss of first-to-market advantage, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The plaintiff travel agency sued a former employee and her new employer for breach of a restrictive covenant, misappropriation of confidential information, and inducing breach of contract.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found the restrictive covenant was an overly broad and unenforceable non-competition clause, as it lacked temporal limits and restricted accepting business from any of the plaintiff's clients.

The court also dismissed the claims for inducing breach of contract and breach of confidence, finding no enforceable contract existed and the information shared by the employee did not possess the requisite quality of confidence.

The defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a 68-year-old captive sales agent, brought an action for constructive dismissal after his employer proposed changes to his commission structure and requested he sign an updated employment agreement.

The plaintiff resigned, claiming a toxic work environment and a fundamental change to his employment terms, despite the employer offering 18 months of working notice on his existing terms.

The court dismissed the action, finding no constructive dismissal as the employer's conduct did not amount to a repudiation of the contract.

Furthermore, the court held that even if constructive dismissal had occurred, the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by refusing the reasonable opportunity to work out the notice period.