Employment and Labour Law

The appellant employer and respondent employee settled two actions for $1,500,000.

The minutes of settlement required a $250,000 payment to the respondent's solicitors in trust 'with no deductions'.

The appellant, on accounting advice, withheld and remitted taxes to the CRA on the full settlement amount, applying the withholding for the trust payment against another payment made directly to the respondent.

The application judge found the appellant breached the minutes.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the minutes ambiguous and concluding the appellant acted reasonably.

Furthermore, the respondent suffered no loss as the remitted funds stood to his credit with the CRA.

The appellant employer appealed from summary judgments granted to two former employees in wrongful dismissal actions brought under the simplified procedure.

The motion judge had awarded damages based on 18 and 20-month notice periods and excused a six-month delay in mitigation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, finding that the motion judge failed to assess the fairness of deciding the matter by summary judgment given the procedural constraints of Rule 76.04, which precluded cross-examination on affidavits.

Because credibility and conflicting evidence were central to the issues of notice extension and mitigation, summary judgment was inappropriate.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claim against a former employee for alleged theft.

The motion judge had found no admissible evidence of theft and noted that the appellant's owner had been convicted of attempted extortion against the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's treatment of the evidence or his reliance on the criminal trial findings.

The appellant municipality appealed a summary judgment decision finding that the respondent, a 25-year employee, was constructively dismissed and entitled to a 26-month notice period.

The appellant solely challenged the motion judge's findings regarding the respondent's efforts to mitigate her damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusions that the respondent's treatment was humiliating, that her decision not to apply for a job 50 km away was reasonable, and that her attendance at her brother's murder trial did not impermissibly hinder her job search.

The appellant, a long-term employee who suddenly became deaf, was subjected to a campaign of abuse by her employer designed to force her resignation.

She was ultimately fired for a frivolous reason.

The employer was noted in default in her wrongful dismissal action.

On appeal from the damages assessment, the Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by awarding damages that were too low across several categories, including Human Rights Code violations, intentional infliction of mental distress, aggravated damages, and punitive damages.

The total damages were increased to $246,049.92, the maximum allowable under the unamended statement of claim.

The appellant employee appealed the dismissal of his motion for partial summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

He argued the motion judge mistranslated a French termination clause in his employment contract and erred in finding it did not contract out of the Employment Standards Act.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged the translation error but found it immaterial, as the motion judge correctly understood the clause referred to minimum notice and intended to respect the Act.

Applying deference to the motion judge's contractual interpretation, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee $500,000 in damages for non-delivery of shares pursuant to an employment contract.

The appellant argued there was no evidence of the shares' liquidity to support the valuation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the liquidity issue was raised for the first time on appeal and the appellant had called no evidence at trial.

The court upheld the trial judge's reliance on the respondent's testimony regarding the company's value and the adverse inference drawn against the appellant for failing to call its president to testify.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing his claim that he was hired by the respondent municipality for a fixed three-year term as CAO.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant was hired only as an 'Acting CAO/Clerk' on a temporary basis, noting that the documentary evidence, the municipality's past practice, and the appellant's own inconsistent positions supported this conclusion.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent municipality.

The appellant employee deleted and took confidential information upon the breakdown of her employment.

The respondent employer sued and moved for an injunction.

The parties negotiated a settlement, but a dispute arose over whether the agreement included a full forensic sweep of the appellant's devices.

The respondent insisted on the sweep and adjourned its injunction motion, while the appellant claimed the respondent had repudiated the settlement.

The motion judge found a binding settlement without the forensic sweep term and held the respondent had not repudiated it.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the respondent's insistence on the term and its steps to preserve the status quo via the injunction did not objectively evince an intention not to be bound by the settlement agreement.

The appellant Superintendent of Financial Services appealed a CCAA judge's order lifting a stay of proceedings and ordering the debtor companies into bankruptcy.

The appellant argued that a deemed trust arose under the Pension Benefits Act upon the wind up of two pension plans during the CCAA proceedings, and that this trust should have priority over secured creditors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the CCAA judge reasonably exercised his discretion to transition the proceedings to bankruptcy under the BIA, where provincial deemed trusts are rendered inoperative by the doctrine of federal paramountcy.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment order awarding damages for wrongful dismissal to a 31-year employee.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by using a 'bridging-to-retirement' approach to calculate the notice period and by failing to deduct mitigation income.

However, the Court upheld the motion judge's alternative finding of a 22-month notice period, as well as the awards for loss of pension benefits and a contractual retirement allowance.

The appeal was allowed in part to deduct mitigation income and adjust the notice period calculation, and the cross-appeal was allowed to increase the notice period to 22 months and remit the costs issue.

In a proposed employment class proceeding, the plaintiff moved to amend an already amended statement of claim to broaden the proposed class definition and extend the proposed class period.

The court held that the class definition amendment was permissible under Rule 26.01 because it clarified the location-based nature of the claim and did not amount to an abuse of process.

However, the attempt to extend the class period from July 8, 2008 back to September 4, 2001 was refused because the original pleading acknowledged a two-year limitation period and no evidence was adduced to rebut presumed discovery under s. 5(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002.

Prejudice to the defendants was inferred from the expiry of the limitation period.

In an addendum to a previous decision allowing the appeal and restoring the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision, the Court of Appeal clarified the timeline for an estoppel period.

Responding to a letter from the respondent's counsel, the court confirmed its intention that the new two-year estoppel period originally set by the OLRB would start again on the date of the court's decision.

The respondent submitted a claim for long-term disability benefits under a group insurance policy, which was denied.

After exhausting the internal appeal process, she commenced an action.

The insurer brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred under both the contractual and statutory limitation periods.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the contractual limitation period ambiguous and that the statutory period began only when the final appeal was denied.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing the contractual language was unclear and deferring to the motion judge's factual finding on when the claim was discovered.

The Court also clarified that a group disability policy is not a 'business agreement' under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing his wrongful dismissal claim.

The motion judge found that the appellant had resigned from his employment, rejecting his argument that he only resigned as an officer and director.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, noting that the appellant had signed a full and final release of all claims, including as an employee, and that the share purchase agreement did not contemplate continued employment.

Applying the deferential standard of review for summary judgment from Hryniak, the Court dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the respondent.

The respondents, former employees and officers of a union local, brought an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging unfair labour practices.

They requested the vice-chair recuse himself because he had previously acted for one of the respondents in an employment dispute.

The vice-chair declined and dismissed the application for serving no labour relations purpose.

The Divisional Court quashed the decisions, finding a conflict of interest.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Divisional Court erred by applying the test for a lawyer's conflict of interest rather than the test for reasonable apprehension of bias by an adjudicator.

The Court found the presumption of impartiality was not rebutted and reinstated the vice-chair's decisions.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her wrongful dismissal claim.

The motion judge had found that the appellant was an independent contractor, not an employee, and that the respondents were entitled to terminate the contract.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or fact in the motion judge's careful and thorough reasons.

The appellant unions appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed an Ontario Labour Relations Board ruling.

The Board had admitted a photocopy of the 1958 Sarnia Working Agreement into evidence as a business record and ancient document, finding it created province-wide bargaining rights binding the respondent employer.

The Board also found the unions were estopped from enforcing the agreement for two years due to representations made in 2000.

The Divisional Court ruled the document inadmissible and substituted a permanent estoppel.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Divisional Court failed to show deference to the Board's evidentiary rulings and remedial discretion, restoring the Board's original decision.

The appellant municipality appealed a judgment invalidating a residence requirement imposed on permanent municipal employees and ordering the respondent’s reinstatement and damages.

A majority of the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the requirement unjustifiably infringed the respondent’s right to privacy under s. 5 of the Quebec Charter, while one set of reasons also held that municipalities are subject to the Canadian Charter and that the requirement violated s. 7 liberty.

The Court held that the decision where to establish one’s home is a fundamentally personal choice protected from unjustified interference and that the municipality’s objectives were insufficient or disproportionate.

The respondent’s cross-appeal seeking additional interim damages was also dismissed because the damages were not properly quantified and the Court of Appeal committed no reversible procedural error.

The appellant was induced to leave secure employment and worked for the respondent for 14 years before being summarily discharged without explanation.

The employer maintained allegations of cause until the start of the trial.

The appellant, an undischarged bankrupt, sued for wrongful dismissal.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that an undischarged bankrupt can maintain an action for wrongful dismissal because damages in lieu of notice constitute exempt 'salary, wages or other remuneration' under the Bankruptcy Act.

The Court also held that while there is no separate tort of 'bad faith discharge', employers have an obligation of good faith and fair dealing in the manner of dismissal.

Breach of this obligation, as occurred here, justifies an extension of the reasonable notice period.

The trial judge's award of 24 months' notice was restored.