Employment and Labour Law

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action sought leave under Rule 31.10 to examine a non-party, the defendant's former head of Human Resources.

The plaintiff alleged he was dismissed after complaining about harassment by his manager, and sought to question the non-party about similar complaints made by other employees.

The non-party was willing to testify but was bound by a non-disclosure agreement that the defendant refused to waive.

The court granted the motion, finding that the non-party had relevant information that the plaintiff could not obtain from the defendant, and that it would be unfair to require the plaintiff to proceed to trial without this discovery.

The plaintiffs, eight long-term employees, brought a motion for default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action after the defendants closed their manufacturing facility and relocated it without notice.

The court found that the defendants wrongfully dismissed the plaintiffs and discriminated against them based on their age.

The court awarded damages for unpaid wages, statutory and common law notice, loss of benefits, human rights breaches, and aggravated damages.

The corporate defendants and the personal defendant were found jointly and severally liable under the common employer doctrine and the oppression remedy.

Two organizations, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce (OCC) and the Canadian Association of Counsel to Employers (CACE), brought motions for leave to intervene in an appeal concerning the enforceability of 'without cause' and 'with cause' termination provisions in an employment contract.

The respondent employee opposed the motions, arguing the appeal was a private dispute and intervention would cause duplication and imbalance.

The motion judge found the appeal raised broader public policy issues regarding employment standards legislation.

To avoid the appearance of unfairness and duplication, the court granted leave to intervene to the OCC but dismissed CACE's motion.

The appellant appealed an order striking his fresh as amended statement of claim against the individual respondents without leave to amend.

The claim alleged constructive dismissal, defamation, conspiracy, discrimination, and breach of Law Society rules following his resignation from the respondent law firm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the pleadings lacked material facts, failed to disclose viable causes of action, and could not be saved by further amendment.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that dismissed their claims for repayment of alleged loans and instead awarded the respondents unpaid wages, punitive damages, and substantial indemnity costs.

The trial judge found that the appellants had 'banked' the respondents' earnings and that the individual appellant acted as a common employer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the banked wages or the common employer doctrine.

The Court also upheld the punitive damages and costs awards, noting the appellant's harsh, offensive, and reprehensible conduct.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding a former executive unpaid vacation pay, deferred bonuses, and the value of lost stock options.

The employer argued the motion judge erred in granting the relief, in finding that issue estoppel barred its just cause defence, and in determining the matter via summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's assessment of the evidence or his conclusion that the just cause defence was barred by issue estoppel following the earlier dismissal of the employer's counterclaim under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant, an investment advisor, received a recruitment bonus structured as a loan to be forgiven annually if revenue targets were met.

After the employer failed to credit bonuses for two years, the parties signed an Amended Note extending the repayment period and acknowledging the unpaid bonuses.

Following his termination, the respondent sued to enforce the Amended Note.

The appellant argued the Amended Note lacked fresh consideration.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the Amended Note was supported by valid consideration, including clarification of the parties' relationship, tax deferral benefits, and an extended interest-free period.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a Superior Court decision striking down the Toronto Transit Commission Labour Disputes Resolution Act, 2011, which eliminated TTC employees' right to strike and replaced it with binding interest arbitration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the complete ban on strikes violates the employees' right to meaningful collective bargaining under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The Court further found that the Crown failed to justify the infringement under s. 1, as it did not demonstrate that the complete ban was minimally impairing or that its salutary effects outweighed the deleterious effects on the workers' Charter rights.

The Ontario government appealed a decision finding that the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which imposed a 1% cap on compensation increases for broader public sector employees, violated the right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the Act substantially interfered with the respondents' collective bargaining rights and was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as it was not minimally impairing and its deleterious effects outweighed its salutary effects.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to limit the declaration of invalidity to represented employees, as non-represented employees do not benefit from the same collective bargaining protections.

The applicants moved for declarations regarding their pension rights under a supplemental pension plan.

The respondent argued the claims were barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, asserting the limitation period began when option statements denying the benefits were issued.

The court held that the claims were not statute-barred, finding that the cause of action for pension benefits does not crystallize until the payments actually fall due and are wrongfully refused, rather than when an anticipatory breach occurs.

The plaintiff, a former investment advisor, sought to certify a class action against the defendant for unpaid overtime under the Employment Standards Act.

The defendant argued that investment advisors were exempt from overtime provisions due to their managerial character or because their compensation provided a greater benefit.

The court found that the plaintiff met all five prerequisites for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including that the applicability of the exemptions could be determined as common issues.

The motion for certification was granted.

The applicant employer sought a labour injunction under section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act to restrain picketing by locked-out employees.

The court applied the four-part test for a labour injunction and found that the employer failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as there were no criminal charges, civil actions, or disciplined employees, and the alleged loss of business was a bald assertion.

Furthermore, the court found that the police had been responsive and effective in maintaining the peace.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a 70-year-old machine operator with 20 years of service, was dismissed without cause and brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal damages.

The defendant employer brought a cross-motion to stay the summary judgment motion until it could conduct an examination for discovery.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding it had failed to put its best foot forward or present any contradictory evidence.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, fixing the reasonable notice period at 22 months and awarding $69,139.03 in damages.

The plaintiff class, comprising salaried and executive retirees of General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL), brought a class action alleging that GMCL breached its contracts by reducing post-retirement health care and life insurance benefits.

On motions for partial summary judgment, the court held that the reservation of rights clauses in the benefit documents for salaried employees were ambiguous and did not clearly permit GMCL to reduce benefits after the employees had retired.

Applying principles of contractual interpretation, including contra proferentem and the duty of good faith, the court found GMCL breached its contracts with the salaried retirees, including new hires and early retirees.

However, the court found that the reservation of rights clause for executive retirees was clear and unambiguous, allowing GMCL to reduce their benefits.

The plaintiff employer brought an action seeking disgorgement of board allowance payments allegedly mistakenly paid to the defendant, a former employee, under a collective agreement.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(3) challenging the court's subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator.

The court agreed, finding that the essential character of the dispute arose under the collective agreement and that an arbitrator had the power to award damages against a former employee.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, founders of a family-owned welding supply business, sued for wrongful dismissal after the business was sold to the manufacturer whose products they distributed.

The manufacturer argued that a term should be implied that the plaintiffs would retire upon the sale of the business given their senior age.

The court rejected this argument, finding that a term of reasonable notice is implied by law in employment contracts.

The court awarded 18 months' notice based on the plaintiffs' actual compensation, resulting in a joint and several damages award of over $1.1 million against the manufacturer and the business.

The defendant brought a motion to determine costs after the parties agreed to end the litigation.

The plaintiff had originally sued the defendant, a former employee, for allegedly misappropriating confidential information and company property.

The action was ultimately discontinued as the anticipated damages did not materialize.

The court found that the litigation was not unreasonable when commenced, but since neither party prevailed on the merits, it ordered that each party bear its own costs.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for breach of non-competition and non-solicitation agreements.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing it was premature as the defendants had failed to produce relevant documents and there were significant credibility issues between the key affiants.

The court agreed with the plaintiff, finding that the motion was premature and could not be disposed of without full discovery and the exchange of affidavits of documents.

The motion for summary judgment was stayed pending the completion of these steps.

The applicant employer brought an application to rectify a 2005 amendment to its hourly employee pension plan.

A drafting error had inadvertently increased early retirement benefits for terminated employees, contrary to the employer's intention to merely close the defined benefit component to new hires.

The court exercised its equitable jurisdiction to rectify the unilateral trust document, finding clear evidence that the amendment was a mistake and did not reflect the employer's true intention.

The respondent employee was entirely successful on an appeal from a Small Claims Court decision regarding wrongful dismissal.

The court received written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $12,915.90, while the appellant employer argued each party should bear their own costs or alternatively pay $7,300.

The court rejected the appellant's argument for no costs and found no justification for full indemnity.

The court fixed the respondent's costs on a partial indemnity basis at $8,500 plus HST.