Employment and Labour Law

The defendants sought clarification of a trial decision regarding the quantum of overtime payable to the plaintiff, arguing that business closures and vacations should reduce the amount.

They also asked the court to revisit a finding regarding a fraudulent withdrawal of cheques.

Applying Rule 59.06(1), the court held it could only correct accidental slips or omissions.

The court found no evidence to support reducing overtime for business closures or family vacations, as the plaintiff was not cross-examined on these points.

However, the court corrected its original decision to exclude overtime for two specific vacation periods taken by the plaintiff.

The court declined to change its finding on the fraudulent cheques, noting the timeline of the cheques supported the original conclusion.

The plaintiff, a 60-year-old upholsterer with 32 years of service, sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal.

He passed away before trial, raising preliminary evidentiary issues regarding the admissibility of his examination for discovery transcripts and hearsay statements made to others.

The court admitted the evidence under the principled approach to hearsay.

On the merits, the court found the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed, not having resigned as the employer claimed, and awarded 23 months' reasonable notice.

The court also awarded $5,000 for a breach of the Human Rights Code, finding the termination was partly based on age and disability, but dismissed claims for aggravated and punitive damages.

The defendant, Daniel Sherk, brought a motion to vary a consent interlocutory injunction that prohibited him from soliciting or servicing clients of his former employer, Verge Insurance Brokers Limited.

He sought to suspend and amend the injunction under Rules 59.06(2)(b) and (d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the restrictive covenants had expired and the court had inherent jurisdiction to vary the order.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that a consent order can only be varied on the same grounds as a contract can be rectified, and that the court's inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent the express provisions of the Rules or to upset a fairly negotiated bargain.

The plaintiff, a registered practical nurse and office manager with 22 years of service, sued her employer, a plastic surgeon, for wrongful dismissal.

Following a dispute over the implementation of electronic medical records, the employer yelled at the plaintiff, used profanity, and told her to get out, stating he was sick of looking at her 'ugly face'.

The court found that the plaintiff was expressly fired, or alternatively constructively dismissed, as the employer's conduct made continued employment intolerable.

The court awarded a 24-month notice period, less mitigation earnings, but dismissed claims for aggravated and punitive damages.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to determine the reasonable notice period following her without-cause termination.

The 41-year-old plaintiff was employed as a middle manager for 2.5 years.

The court found that the employer's contributions to CPP and EI should be included in the calculation of her compensation package.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court fixed the reasonable notice period at six months and awarded damages of $23,315, representing the balance owing after deducting severance payments already made.

Following a trial and appeal regarding an employment dispute, the court determined the costs of the trial.

The defendant, who was successful on her counterclaim, sought costs based on an offer to settle.

The court found the offer to settle complied with Rule 49 and that the judgment was more favourable than the offer.

Finding the defendant's claimed costs of over $71,000 to be disproportionately high, the court fixed costs at $55,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff's employment was terminated, which immediately ended his long-term disability (LTD) coverage under the employer's group policy.

Two months later, he became totally disabled in a motor vehicle accident.

The employer inadvertently continued paying LTD premiums, and the insurer initially denied the claim based on lack of total disability and late filing, while reserving the right to investigate eligibility.

The plaintiff argued the insurer waived the termination date of the policy.

The court dismissed the action, finding no waiver because the insurer lacked full knowledge of the termination and did not unequivocally intend to relinquish its right to rely on the policy's termination clause.

The plaintiff property management company brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain former employees and their new company from soliciting its clients and employees.

The plaintiff alleged the former employees breached non-solicitation clauses in their employment contracts.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious question about whether the defendants were bound by the clauses, there was no evidence of actual solicitation.

Furthermore, the court found the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm, as any potential losses could be quantified and recovered through damages.

The plaintiff brought a motion for further production of corporate and financial records to resist a pending summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff sought to establish that multiple related corporate defendants were his common employer.

The defendants admitted to joint control and administration, and the operating companies undertook joint and several liability for any damages awarded.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the requested disclosure was disproportionate and unnecessary given the defendants' admissions.

The plaintiff, a former employee of the defendant medical equipment manufacturer, sought unpaid commissions for a $2.3 million sale to the Iraqi Ministry of Health.

The defendant argued that commissions for Iraqi sales were discretionary and attempted to unilaterally impose a new, less favorable commission structure just before the deal closed.

The court found that a binding contract existed entitling the plaintiff to a 7% commission on the gross margin of the sale.

Alternatively, the court held the plaintiff would be entitled to the same amount under quantum meruit.

The plaintiff was awarded $86,291.64 in unpaid commissions.

The plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action was previously dismissed for delay under Rule 48, and a motion to reinstate was rejected.

The plaintiff subsequently brought a motion that did not comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure and was incomprehensible.

After the plaintiff failed to respond to a notice under Rule 2.1, the court dismissed the motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff successfully obtained an interim injunction against the defendants during a labour strike that was causing significant delays to the plaintiff's operations.

The only remaining issue was the quantum of costs.

The plaintiff sought over $205,000, including significant disbursements for private investigators, while the defendants suggested $15,000.

The court found the plaintiff's claimed costs excessive and punitive, noting the legal and factual issues were straightforward.

The court awarded the plaintiff a total of $37,083.80, which included a significantly reduced allowance for the investigator disbursements and legal fees.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, and disability.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay, as the last alleged incident occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

The applicant argued that the delay was due to waiting for his union to take action and being unaware of the limitation period.

The Tribunal found that waiting for the outcome of another process and ignorance of rights did not constitute a good faith explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant, a person with a developmental disability, worked as a general labourer for the respondent for over 10 years.

She was paid a 'training honorarium' of $1.00 to $1.25 per hour, while non-disabled employees performing substantially similar work were paid the statutory minimum wage.

The Tribunal found that this differential pay practice constituted discrimination on the basis of disability, as it imposed an arbitrary disadvantage on the applicant solely because of her disability, despite allowing her to maintain provincial disability support payments.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay compensation for lost income and injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and issued compliance orders including a cease and desist order and mandatory training.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

The respondent and the union confirmed the ongoing grievance.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that the orderly administration of justice favours deferral when parties are engaged in a concurrent legal proceeding raising the same human rights issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability and discriminatory termination.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had already dealt with the substance of the application by denying the applicant's claim for benefits.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request, finding that while there was overlap, the WSIB had not appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide further information regarding the status of any WSIB appeals to determine if deferral was appropriate.

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

The applicant's union, Unifor, filed a Request to Intervene.

As neither the applicant nor the respondent opposed the request, and unions generally have an interest in applications brought by bargaining unit members, the Tribunal granted the union leave to intervene.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.

He subsequently filed a Request for Interim Remedy seeking immediate reinstatement to a position at the Canada Centre work site.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the balance of harm favoured granting the interim remedy or that it was necessary to ensure the Tribunal could award a complete and effective remedy at the end of the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and reprisal after the respondents allegedly refused to allow her to return to her pre-pregnancy leave position.

The applicant also filed a concurrent complaint with the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act based on the same facts.

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

Finding that the factual circumstances overlapped almost completely and that there was a significant risk of inconsistent factual findings, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the Employment Standards Act claim.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate his disability, while concurrently pursuing a union grievance based on the same facts.

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

Finding substantial overlap between the application and the ongoing grievance, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application until the conclusion of the grievance process.