Employment and Labour Law

The representative plaintiff brought a class action on behalf of debt collectors who were temporarily laid off when Global Credit's largest client, Capital One, terminated its collection agreement.

Following the termination, Capital One paid Global a $5.7 million settlement.

The plaintiff claimed the class members were contractually entitled to a 15 percent commission on this settlement, arguing it was compensation for post-dated cheques returned to Capital One.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court dismissed the action, finding that the settlement was not compensation for the post-dated cheques and that commissions were only payable if individual monthly breakeven targets were met, which did not occur.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for long-term disability benefits and related damages, including an allegation of conspiracy.

The plaintiff had previously received benefits but her coverage was terminated when she reduced her work hours to part-time.

The court found no evidence to support the conspiracy claim against the employer or the insurers.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff's claim for disability benefits was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as she discovered or ought to have discovered her claim when she was allegedly unable to work full-time in March 2007, but did not commence the action until May 2011.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a representation order under Rule 12.07 to amend the statement of claim, adding the individual defendants as representatives of all members of the defendant trade union.

The defendants argued this would improperly add parties after the expiry of the limitation period.

The court found the motion was an attempt to correct an error in the title of proceedings under Rule 5.04, not to add new parties, as the union had been a party from the outset.

The court granted the representation order, noting the defendants' delay in bringing their own Rule 21 motion and the lack of prejudice.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action on behalf of approximately 7,000 door-to-door sales agents who were hired by the defendants as independent contractors.

The plaintiff alleged that the sales agents were misclassified and were actually employees entitled to benefits under the Employment Standards Act.

The court found that the plaintiff satisfied the requirements for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, noting sufficient evidence of systemic commonality regarding the defendants' control over the sales agents.

The motion for certification was granted.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claims against all defendants except one corporate entity, relying on an 'Entire Agreement' clause in an independent contractor agreement.

The court treated the motion as one under Rule 21.01(1)(b) rather than Rule 25.11.

The court found that the plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts to support a reasonable cause of action against the remaining corporate defendants based on the common employer doctrine.

The motion to strike the claims against the four corporate defendants was dismissed, while the claims against the personal defendant and one paragraph of the statement of claim were struck on consent.

The plaintiff, a production supervisor with 19 years of service, brought an action for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for cause.

The employer alleged that 1500 defective camshafts were produced on the plaintiff's shift, and that the plaintiff was dishonest during the subsequent investigation.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that the defective parts were indeed produced on the plaintiff's shift and that the plaintiff lied about his involvement.

Applying the McKinley test, the court held that the plaintiff's failure to properly supervise the line, combined with his dishonesty and prior disciplinary record, constituted serious misconduct that struck at the heart of the employment relationship.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff former employee brought a motion to compel the defendant employer to answer questions refused on discovery and produce documents over which the defendants claimed solicitor-client privilege.

The defendants had produced certain emails between their lawyer and a senior employee in their affidavit of documents and answered questions about them on discovery, later claiming the disclosure was inadvertent.

The court found the disclosure was not inadvertent and that the defendants could not selectively waive privilege to support their defence of acting in good faith while withholding other communications on the same issue.

The motion was granted, and the defendants were ordered to produce all related communications.

Following a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action, the plaintiff sought costs of $13,418.32, including a substantial indemnity portion based on an offer to settle.

The court found Rule 49.10 did not apply as the offer was served on the morning of the hearing.

Considering the mixed success on issues, unnecessary cross-examinations, and the factors under Rule 57.01, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $7,250.

The defendant brought a motion for the production of notes and records from the plaintiff's counsel's file.

The plaintiff had previously moved to amend his statement of claim to withdraw an admission that he resigned, alleging his counsel made a drafting error and that he had actually been terminated.

The court found that by putting his communications with his counsel into issue to explain the alleged error, the plaintiff waived solicitor-client privilege over those specific communications.

The motion was granted in part, ordering the production of direct communications between the plaintiff and his counsel regarding how his employment ended.

The plaintiff university brought an action against its former Assistant Vice-President and Director of Maintenance, alleging they orchestrated multiple fraudulent schemes, including false invoicing, kickbacks, and using university resources for personal residence improvements.

The court found the defendants liable for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, ordering them to pay damages.

The court also voided the transfer of the primary defendant's properties to his family members as fraudulent conveyances and rescinded his severance agreement due to material non-disclosure of his fraudulent activities.

In the context of CCAA proceedings for U.S. Steel Canada Inc., three former employees brought a motion seeking payment of lump sum retention bonuses under their severance agreements.

The respondent argued the payments were pre-filing obligations subject to the CCAA stay.

The court found the bonuses were compensation for post-filing services, as they were contingent on the employees remaining available to work during the notice period.

The court exercised its discretion to order payment, finding it fair and equitable as it would not create an unfair priority over other employees and the amounts were de minimus.

The Receiver brought a motion to distribute funds to the secured creditor, RBC, and to approve its fees.

The Union opposed, claiming a super-priority for unpaid pension and other benefits under the BIA over all companies in the receivership, and sought to claw back the Receiver's fees.

The court held that the CRA's deemed trust for unremitted source deductions under the Income Tax Act takes priority over the Union's BIA super-priority claims.

The court also rejected the Union's attempt to extend its claims to other corporate entities in the group, finding no evidence they were related employers or participated in the pension plan.

The Union's attempt to claw back the Receiver's fees was dismissed as an impermissible collateral attack.

The defendant university brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's representative action, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction and the dispute should be resolved by a labour arbitrator.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant failed to share savings from the Employment Insurance Premium Reduction Program with employees.

The court applied the Weber test and found that the essential character of the dispute did not arise from the collective agreement, but rather from the defendant's alleged failure to comply with the Employment Insurance Act.

The motion to dismiss was denied.

The plaintiff dentist brought an action against his former employee for misappropriation of funds.

The defendant employee brought a motion to strike the statement of claim or for summary judgment dismissing the action, arguing it was statute-barred and lacked sufficient particulars.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to consolidate the action with the defendant's separate constructive dismissal action.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding the pleadings sufficient and that genuine issues of material fact required a trial.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion in part, ordering the two actions to be tried together or consecutively to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The plaintiff, a successful retail stockbroker, sued his former employer for breach of contract, alleging he was owed a 10% finder's fee on several large corporate finance transactions under an April 11, 2006 agreement.

The court found that the agreement was exclusively a retail document and did not apply to transactions involving the employer's Capital Markets group.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's claims for negligent overpayment of his assistant, unjust enrichment, bad faith, and entitlement to unvested deferred stock units.

The action was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant, an employee of the LCBO, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, family status, and reprisal, primarily concerning his need for accommodation to care for his elderly parents.

He sought an interim remedy to be returned to a specific store location pending the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the interim remedy request, finding the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case or urgency.

Furthermore, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the resolution of multiple ongoing grievance arbitrations that raised similar and overlapping issues regarding the applicant's family status accommodation needs.

The applicant, a female sales executive, was excluded from a company-sponsored customer appreciation event ("Men's Day") because of her sex.

After she complained to management about the exclusionary nature of the event, her supervisor ceased one-on-one meetings with her, excluded her from other meetings, and her employment was subsequently terminated.

The Tribunal found that the exclusion from the event constituted discrimination on the basis of sex under s. 5(1) of the Human Rights Code, as it adversely impacted her ability to build client relationships compared to her male peers.

The Tribunal also found that the termination and other exclusionary actions constituted a reprisal under s. 8 of the Code.

The respondent was ordered to pay $18,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, plus lost wages and $150 for the value of the event.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging sex discrimination.

He had been terminated due to complaints about his body odour, which he argued were based on subjective female standards that he, as a male, should not have to meet.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and had not provided new determinative evidence or established any other grounds for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, while concurrently pursuing a union grievance based on the same facts.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the grievance.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting its normal approach to defer to concurrent legal proceedings where the same human rights issues are raised before a decision-maker with the authority to resolve them.

The applicant, a correctional officer, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and colour, specifically regarding the employer's failure to prevent a recurrence of racist hate mail.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's request for production of documents and the Union's request for intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the Union non-party intervenor status to address matters of broad application to the workplace.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to produce certain documents related to the investigation of the racist hate mail, finding them arguably relevant, while deferring other broader production requests until the applicant testifies at the hearing.