Employment and Labour Law

The plaintiff employer brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain a former employee from soliciting and doing business with its existing customers.

The employee had resigned and started a competing business selling similar products.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found there was a serious issue to be tried but concluded the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm, noting the employee was not a fiduciary and damages would be an adequate remedy.

The balance of convenience favoured the employee, as the injunction would deprive him of his primary ability to earn a living.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a 42-year-old magazine publisher with 16.5 years of continuous service (including time with a predecessor employer), brought a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal damages after being terminated without cause.

The court awarded a 16-month reasonable notice period.

The court also resolved disputes over the calculation of commissions and bonuses during the notice period, projecting commissions based on the plaintiff's historical performance and the new magazine's total revenue.

A trust and accounting approach was ordered for mitigation during the remainder of the notice period.

The plaintiff worked as a live-in caregiver and housekeeper for the defendants, who were her sister and brother-in-law, for nine years.

After her employment ended, she sued for unpaid wages, overtime, unauthorized withdrawals from her bank account, and wrongful dismissal.

The court found that the limitation period did not bar her claims due to fraudulent concealment and her inability to discover the underpayments.

The court determined she was dismissed without cause, awarded 10 months' reasonable notice, ordered repayment of unauthorized withdrawals made under a power of attorney, and found she was entitled to overtime pay for working 58 hours per week.

Claims for punitive damages and a higher oral contract salary were dismissed.

The plaintiff was successful in a wrongful dismissal trial and sought costs.

Following the trial but before costs were decided, the defendant made a voluntary assignment into bankruptcy.

The court noted that the plaintiff did not need to seek an order lifting the stay under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to obtain a costs order, as judgment was rendered prior to the assignment.

The plaintiff beat its offer to settle and sought full indemnity costs of over $232,000.

The court applied the overriding principle of reasonableness, declining to engage in a purely mathematical exercise of reviewing time spent, and fixed the plaintiff's costs at $73,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiff, a former associate lawyer, brought a motion to consolidate her wrongful dismissal action against her former employer with a subsequent libel action against the employer and their legal counsel.

The libel action arose from comments made by the employer's counsel to a legal publication regarding the wrongful dismissal pleadings.

The court dismissed the motion to consolidate, finding that doing so would likely force the defendants' counsel to step down due to conflicts of interest and risk breaching solicitor-client privilege.

Instead, the court ordered a stay of the libel action pending the resolution of the wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff employee was temporarily laid off by the defendant employer.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment claiming constructive dismissal, arguing the employment contract did not permit temporary layoffs.

The employer argued the layoff complied with the Employment Standards Act.

The court held that a temporary layoff without express or implied contractual authority constitutes constructive dismissal, rejecting the argument that the ESA displaces the common law requirement.

The plaintiff was awarded statutory notice and severance pay.

However, the court capped common law damages at five months because the plaintiff failed to mitigate by refusing a recall to work, and these damages were fully offset by statutory payments and new employment income.

During the hearing of an application, the intervener provided a chart that was not entered into evidence.

The court indicated that a further chart could be jointly submitted post-hearing only if all parties agreed to its contents.

As the parties were unable to agree, the court ruled that no further charts, including one submitted by the applicants, would be accepted for filing.

The accused, a project manager on a balcony restoration project, was charged with four counts of criminal negligence causing death and one count of criminal negligence causing bodily harm after a swing stage collapsed, causing five workers to fall 100 feet.

The court found that the accused had the authority to direct the workers and breached his duty under s. 217.1 of the Criminal Code by permitting six workers to board the swing stage when he knew there were only two lifelines available.

The court held that this failure constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonable supervisor, showing wanton and reckless disregard for the workers' lives and safety.

The accused's negligence was found to be a significant contributing cause of the deaths and injuries, and he was found guilty on all counts.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded 12 months' salary for wrongful dismissal, the court held a further hearing to determine two issues.

First, the court ruled that the plaintiff's long-term disability benefits must be deducted from his wrongful dismissal damages to prevent double recovery, as the employer was responsible for paying both.

Second, the court ordered the plaintiff to produce redacted dockets in support of his $208,000 bill of costs, finding that the detailed bill of costs alone was insufficient 'other evidence' under Rule 57.01(5).

The plaintiff brought an undefended action against her former employer and its manager for wrongful dismissal, sexual assault, battery, and harassment.

The manager repeatedly sexually assaulted and harassed the plaintiff, who was a vulnerable single mother.

Following the assaults, the plaintiff was terminated without cause in a harsh and vindictive manner.

The court found the manager liable for battery, breach of fiduciary duty, and human rights violations, and held the corporate employer vicariously liable.

The court awarded substantial general, aggravated, and punitive damages, as well as damages for wrongful dismissal and a Family Law Act claim for the plaintiff's daughter.

The defendants brought a motion seeking a declaration that certain inadvertently disclosed documents were subject to solicitor-client or litigation privilege, their return, and the removal of the plaintiffs' counsel of record.

The plaintiffs, former executives of the defendant organization suing for wrongful dismissal, argued that common interest privilege applied to the legal advice they received alongside the board of directors.

The court found that common interest privilege applied to the majority of the disputed communications and that privilege had been waived for others.

The motion to remove the plaintiffs' counsel was dismissed as grossly disproportionate, given that only one minor redaction was required and no prejudice was shown.

The plaintiff, a former part-time housekeeper for OLG at the Rideau Carleton Raceway, commenced an action alleging workplace harassment, constructive discharge, and defamation.

The defendant Rideau Carleton Raceway brought a motion to strike the statement of claim.

The court granted the motion, finding that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action, lacked material facts, and were frivolous and vexatious.

The action against the moving party was dismissed without costs.

The plaintiff, a lawyer, sued his former employer for an unpaid bonus after being dismissed without cause.

The employment contract contained a limitation clause stating that bonuses did not accrue and were only payable if the employee was actively employed on the payout date.

The plaintiff argued the clause was contrary to public policy, inconsistently applied, and ambiguous.

The court found that while the bonus was an integral part of compensation and the entire agreement clause did not exclude prior oral representations, the limitation clause itself was unambiguous and enforceable.

The plaintiff had accepted the contract with full knowledge of its terms.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the area of employment, specifically regarding the respondent's failure to provide written documentation during a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention process.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed a union grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues.

Finding a substantial overlap between the application and the grievance, which was scheduled to be heard by the Grievance Settlement Board, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation, claiming his supervisor targeted him after he disclosed he was gay, and that his subsequent termination was discriminatory.

He also alleged the employer failed to investigate his complaints.

The Tribunal found that while the supervisor's treatment of the applicant was unfair and inappropriate, it was not connected to his sexual orientation but rather to his performance and her history of being difficult with new employees.

The termination was found to be based on legitimate performance issues.

The Tribunal also held that an employer's failure to investigate a human rights complaint is not an independent breach of the Code where no underlying discrimination is found to have occurred.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had an outstanding grievance arising from the same factual circumstances and seeking human rights damages.

The Tribunal found that deferring the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, avoiding the duplication of proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction to determine whether the application should be deferred pending the completion of concurrent union grievances.

The applicant subsequently instructed her union to withdraw the grievances in order to pursue the matter before the Tribunal.

As there was no longer an ongoing concurrent proceeding, the Tribunal determined that deferral was not appropriate.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The applicant requested that the application be deferred because she had an outstanding grievance based on the same facts and issues, and the respondent agreed.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The respondents requested that the human rights application, which alleged discrimination in employment based on disability, be deferred because the applicant had filed a union grievance dealing with the same issues.

The applicant did not make submissions on the deferral request.

The Tribunal found that the issues and remedies sought in the grievance overlapped with the application, and proceeding could lead to inconsistent decisions.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment because of sex under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant also filed a concurrent claim under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) alleging reprisal and termination due to pregnancy.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application.

The respondents consented to the deferral, and the applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the resolution of the ESA claim, noting that the narratives in both claims were almost identical and concurrent proceedings posed a real risk of inconsistent findings of fact.