Employment and Labour Law

Following a successful 11-day trial where the plaintiff was awarded $604,627.09 and the defendant's $1.75 million counterclaim was dismissed, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $546,684.73.

The defendant argued for a reduced award of $200,000, claiming the plaintiff's costs were unreasonable.

The court awarded the plaintiff the full amount claimed, finding the costs proportionate to the result, justified by the defendant's unfounded fraud allegations, litigation misconduct (including refusal to admit facts, late disclosure, and causing trial delays), and the complexity introduced by the counterclaim.

The court also noted the plaintiff's counsel's superior preparedness compared to the defendant's.

The defendant, SPS Commerce Canada Ltd., brought a motion to strike paragraphs 33 to 40 of the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, arguing they contained without prejudice settlement discussions protected by settlement privilege.

The plaintiff, Tricia Clayton, opposed the motion, distinguishing between settlement discussions regarding a severance package and communications related to the employer's statutory duty to investigate harassment allegations and a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).

The court found that the three conditions for settlement privilege were not met for the communications concerning the investigation and PIP, as these were factual and part of the employer's statutory obligations, not attempts to effect a settlement.

The motion to strike was dismissed.

The plaintiff, having succeeded in a wrongful dismissal action, sought substantial indemnity costs.

The defendant challenged the quantum and the plaintiff sought personal costs against the defendant's solicitor for litigation conduct, including abandoning the defence at trial.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs until the offer to settle date and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, significantly reducing the claimed amount.

The court also ordered the defendant's solicitor to personally pay a portion of the costs due to dereliction of duty and dismissive conduct.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a conviction for neglect of duty arising from his handling of an incident involving an off-duty officer.

The appellant had instructed his junior officers to prepare reports but chose not to confront the off-duty officer at his home in the early morning hours, opting instead to verify the home was quiet and report to his superior later.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, finding that the appellant properly exercised his discretion and investigated the matter with due diligence given the circumstances.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty of forfeiture of four days' pay for insubordination.

He was charged after engaging a stopped driver in an unsolicited religious conversation, contrary to a direct order previously issued to him.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the conversation occurred, was religious in nature, and breached the order.

The Commission dismissed the appeal against both conviction and penalty, noting the appellant's prior disciplinary record for identical conduct.

The Durham Regional Police Force applied to lift the statutory stay of a penalty ordering the appellant police officer to resign or be dismissed.

The appellant had been suspended with pay for nearly three years and was convicted of criminal offences, including obstruction of justice, as well as Police Act offences for corrupt practice and discreditable conduct.

The Commission exercised its discretion under s. 25 of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act to lift the stay, citing the combination of the lengthy suspension, the serious nature of the criminal convictions striking at the heart of police duties, and the severity of the penalty imposed.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty requiring him to resign or be summarily dismissed after pleading guilty to multiple counts of misconduct, including insubordination and neglect of duty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission first ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to admit new evidence of post-hearing conduct absent special circumstances, and that it could not impose penalties outside the prescribed statutory scheme.

On the merits, the Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that despite the appellant's alcoholism, his extensive prior disciplinary record and psychological assessments indicating an inability to function as a First Class Constable justified the termination of his employment.

The appellant police officer was convicted of neglect of duty for failing to prepare a fingerprint comparison chart prior to a preliminary hearing, resulting in the withdrawal of criminal charges.

The Hearing Officer found the appellant should have used his rest days to complete the task.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission set aside the conviction, finding that the appellant had made a diligent attempt to fulfill his duties during his regular working hours and that the expectation to use rest days was based on hindsight.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of neglect of duty arising from his failure to properly acknowledge and accept an emergency dispatch call regarding a child with scissors stuck in her head.

Although the officer immediately drove toward the scene, he failed to activate the 'Accept Detail' button or advise the dispatcher, instead stating he was off shift in fifteen minutes.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the failure to properly acknowledge the call and proceed without hesitation in the prescribed manner constituted neglect of duty.

An application was brought to determine whether the secretary to the chief of police and the secretary to the deputy chief of police of the Brockville Police Force are "senior officers" under Section 30 of the Police Act.

The Ontario Police Commission found that the secretary to the chief of police qualifies as a senior officer because her duties involve highly confidential matters related to budget preparation, negotiations, and discipline.

However, the Commission ruled that the secretary to the deputy chief of police does not qualify as a senior officer, as it is not necessary for the good management of the force for her to be privy to such confidential information, which could be handled by the chief's secretary.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty for deceit under the Police Services Act.

He was charged with negligently making an inaccurate statement in a report regarding an arrest, after failing to consult his notes.

The appellant argued the document was an unsigned draft and had not been formally submitted.

The Commission found the document was intended as a report and was placed in the system, upholding the conviction.

The penalty of forfeiting five days' pay was also upheld, given the seriousness of the inaccuracy in the context of responding to public criticism of the police force.

The appellant police officer appealed his convictions and penalties from two separate disciplinary trials.

In the first trial, he was reduced in rank for neglect of duty after failing to meet performance appraisal objectives over a twelve-month period.

The Commission found the objectives were reasonable and did not constitute an illegal order.

In the second trial, he was ordered to resign or be dismissed for neglect of duty and deceit related to failing to follow up on an investigation and falsely reporting its status to dispose of evidence.

The Commission dismissed both appeals, upholding the convictions and penalties.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty imposed following his guilty plea to discreditable conduct for an off-duty impaired driving conviction.

The officer, an admitted alcoholic who had since sought treatment, was reduced in rank to Fourth Class Constable (High) for six months.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the penalty, noting the serious nature of drinking and driving offences and the change in public attitude, while acknowledging the officer's rehabilitative efforts and potential as mitigating factors.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary penalty of forced resignation or dismissal after being found guilty of discreditable conduct for shoplifting items worth approximately $70.

The appellant presented psychiatric evidence that he was under severe stress due to his own battle with Hodgkin's disease and his father's serious illness.

The Commission accepted that the stress explained, but did not excuse, the conduct, and upheld the finding of guilt.

However, considering the appellant's 18 years of unblemished service and his mental turmoil, the Commission found dismissal too severe.

The penalty was varied to a reduction in rank from First Class Constable to Second Class Constable for at least six months.

The Town of Napanee applied to the Ontario Police Commission for consent to abolish its municipal police force in order to contract policing services from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

Various community members, police associations, and citizens made representations regarding the adequacy of the current force, the cost savings of the OPP contract, and the impact on current officers and the community.

The Commission determined it had jurisdiction to consider the adequacy of both the existing and proposed policing services.

Finding no evidence that either the current or proposed policing was inadequate, the Commission granted consent to disband the municipal force, subject to conditions ensuring that current members are either offered employment with the OPP or provided with fair severance determined by binding arbitration.

The Arnprior Police Association applied to determine the status of a civilian clerk-typist employed by the Town of Arnprior Police.

The Town conceded she was a member of the police force but argued she was employed in a confidential capacity and should be excluded from the Association as a senior officer.

The Commission found insufficient evidence of a confidential capacity and noted that no senior officers association existed in the force as required by section 30(2) of the Police Act.

The application was allowed, confirming the Association's entitlement to bargain on the employee's behalf.

The Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Board of Commissioners of Police applied to the Ontario Police Commission to determine the status of its Chief Clerk, a civilian member, as a senior officer.

The Police Association opposed the application, arguing the position was within the bargaining unit.

The Commission found that the Chief Clerk possessed confidential budget and salary information and participated in in-camera meetings regarding negotiation strategy.

Consequently, the Commission determined the position was of a 'confidential capacity' and granted the application to classify the Chief Clerk as a senior officer.

The appellant, a police constable convicted of deceit and dismissed from the force, applied for an order declaring that a letter sent by the Police Association requesting an extension of time to file an appeal constituted a valid Notice of Appeal under Regulation 791 of the Police Act.

The Ontario Police Commission dismissed the application, finding that the letter explicitly requested an extension of time and could not be construed as a Notice of Appeal itself.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Board of Commissioners of Police affirming his conviction for assaulting a fellow officer and varying his penalty from dismissal to a reduction in rank.

The appellant argued the assault was trivial, the Board erred in considering his past record, and the penalty was excessive.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding sufficient evidence of an assault intended to intimidate.

The Commission varied the penalty by imposing a nine-month time limit on the reduction in rank, holding that an indefinite reduction improperly delegated the ultimate penalty decision.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for insubordination and the resulting penalty of termination.

The officer had refused a direct order to walk a beat, citing medical problems with his legs, but provided no further explanation at the time.

The officer had previously arranged to work until he qualified for a disability pension but later refused to comply with the agreed-upon shift work.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the charge sheet defects were not fatal, the ordering officers were not fully aware of his medical limitations, and there was no denial of natural justice.

The penalty of termination was upheld given the officer's admitted inability to perform general police duties.