Employment and Labour Law

The 74-year-old plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal action after 31 years of service with the defendant construction company.

The defendant claimed the plaintiff had voluntarily retired in 2010 and was only working on an as-needed basis.

The court found no evidence of retirement and concluded the plaintiff was terminated without cause in October 2012.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded 20 months' pay in lieu of notice, finding the plaintiff was not required to mitigate by accepting a demeaning demotion to a flagman position.

The plaintiff, a former staff member for a Member of Parliament, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that her employment contract was valid and that the collective agreement had no legal force, arguing that the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act excluded MP staff from collective bargaining.

The defendant MP brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction due to the collective agreement's arbitration clause.

The plaintiff also sought to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim for defamation for lack of notice under the Libel and Slander Act, and to strike a paragraph referencing her counsel's political background.

The court dismissed both motions for summary judgment, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the scope of the Act and the collective agreement, and whether the defamation claim required notice.

However, the court granted the motion to strike the paragraph about the plaintiff's counsel's political background as irrelevant and vexatious.

The plaintiffs sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendants, including a former shareholder and several former employees, from competing against the plaintiff company and soliciting its clients and employees.

The court found that the former shareholder breached the restrictive covenants in the unanimous shareholder agreement and his fiduciary duties by orchestrating a plan to use confidential information to divert business to a newly formed competitor.

The court applied the strong prima facie case standard for the first branch of the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the plaintiffs established a strong case, would suffer irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The court granted the injunction against the former shareholder and the former employees, enjoining them from using confidential information and competing in association with the former shareholder.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in his wrongful dismissal and human rights claim against his former employer.

The plaintiff alleged he was terminated without cause, while the employer maintained he resigned or abandoned his position.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial due to significant conflicts in the evidence regarding the circumstances of the plaintiff's departure, his medical condition, and mitigation efforts.

The court declined to use its discretionary fact-finding powers, concluding that a fair and just determination required a full trial.

The plaintiff, a former employee of the Royal Bank of Canada in British Columbia, moved to Ontario and sought employment at an Ontario branch.

She alleged that a British Columbia-based employee defamed her to Ontario employees, resulting in the withdrawal of an employment offer and constructive dismissal.

The defendants moved to stay the action, arguing Ontario lacked jurisdiction and that British Columbia was the more convenient forum.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a presumptive connection to Ontario based on the tort of defamation occurring there, and held that the defendants failed to establish that British Columbia was a clearly more appropriate forum.

A case conference endorsement determining the scheduling and order of three pending motions in two related wrongful dismissal actions arising from mass lay-offs following the bankruptcy of several meat packing companies.

The court directed that the defendants' jurisdiction motion (the 'Weber' motion) and limitations motion be heard together first, prior to the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Following a trial for wrongful dismissal where the plaintiff was successful, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendant argued that its offers to settle should impact costs, that costs should be distributed due to the plaintiff's unsuccessful bad faith claims, and that the plaintiff should pay substantial indemnity costs for those allegations.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments, finding the offers did not meet Rule 49 requirements and the bad faith claims, while unsuccessful, were not reprehensible.

The court awarded the plaintiff $171,000 in partial indemnity costs plus disbursements.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's Order dismissing his wrongful dismissal action for delay.

The action was administratively dismissed after plaintiff's counsel failed to pass the trial record in accordance with a court-ordered timetable.

The court applied the Reid factors and found that the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the extensive litigation delay, failed to demonstrate inadvertence, and did not move promptly to set aside the dismissal.

The motion was dismissed, upholding the administrative dismissal.

The plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal action against his former employer and its owners, alleging age discrimination.

The personal defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the age discrimination claims against them.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for summary judgment on the entire claim.

The court granted the personal defendants' motion, finding no employment relationship and no factual foundation for the age discrimination claim.

On the plaintiff's motion, the court found no cause for termination and that the plaintiff had mitigated his damages, leaving only the quantum of notice to be determined at a later date.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class proceeding against the defendant employer for unpaid overtime.

The proposed class included non-management employees subject to the defendant's overtime policy.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed valid causes of action in breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and negligence.

The court certified the action, finding that there was an identifiable class, common issues regarding systemic practices and aggregate damages, that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and that the plaintiff was an appropriate representative.

The defendant employee, accused of defrauding the plaintiff employer of over $470,000, brought a motion for further and better documentary production.

The defendant counterclaimed for unpaid loans and wrongful dismissal, alleging she was directed to make cash payments to creditors and others.

The Master granted the motion, ordering broad production of cheques, invoices, bank statements, and financial records, finding that the employer's unorthodox accounting practices and the serious nature of the fraud allegations necessitated extensive documentary discovery to allow forensic reconstruction of the financial history.

The plaintiff, a graphite mining company, sought an interlocutory injunction against two former senior executives and their new employer, a competing graphite company.

The plaintiff alleged the former employees breached their fiduciary duties, confidentiality obligations, and non-competition/non-solicitation agreements by surreptitiously securing employment with the competitor and usurping a corporate opportunity regarding a processing facility.

The court granted the injunction, finding a strong prima facie case of breach, irreparable harm due to the highly competitive nature of the industry and potential loss of first-to-market advantage, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The plaintiff travel agency sued a former employee and her new employer for breach of a restrictive covenant, misappropriation of confidential information, and inducing breach of contract.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found the restrictive covenant was an overly broad and unenforceable non-competition clause, as it lacked temporal limits and restricted accepting business from any of the plaintiff's clients.

The court also dismissed the claims for inducing breach of contract and breach of confidence, finding no enforceable contract existed and the information shared by the employee did not possess the requisite quality of confidence.

The defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted and the action was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisals in employment by the respondent.

The United Food and Commercial Workers’ International Union Local 333 filed a Request to Intervene.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that the application raises issues that may affect the union.

The Tribunal directed that the matter proceed to a three-day hearing, where the presiding adjudicator will determine the extent of the union's participation.

The corporate respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred because the applicant had filed an objection with the WSIB regarding loss of earnings benefits.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that there was no active WSIB proceeding underway and that the Tribunal's jurisdiction over the harassment and discrimination allegations was broader than the WSIB's.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to join this application with another application against the same respondent, noting that the facts and procedural issues in each case were different.

The respondents brought a request to remove four personal respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment.

The organizational respondent accepted full liability for any discrimination found to have been committed by three supervisory personal respondents in the course of their employment.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal removed the three supervisors as personal respondents.

However, the Tribunal declined to remove a co-worker alleged to have engaged in racial harassment, noting that an employer may not be vicariously liable for harassment under section 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, a 58-year-old dishwasher of Sri Lankan origin, alleged that the respondents discriminated against him based on age, race, colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin during his brief employment.

He claimed he was treated differently, subjected to discriminatory comments, and that his employment was terminated and wages withheld for discriminatory reasons.

The Tribunal found that the differential treatment, such as bag checks and being paid in cash, was due to his status as a new employee, not his race or age.

The Tribunal concluded that the workplace conflict arose from differing work styles and the applicant's angry outburst, rather than discrimination, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against his former employer, a telecommunications service provider.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the employer appeared to be federally-regulated.

Finding that telecommunications undertakings fall within federal jurisdiction under s. 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the Tribunal concluded it was plain and obvious that the employment relationship was not governed by the provincial Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of his two human rights applications until the end of his probationary period, citing a fear of reprisal following the settlement of his union grievance.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that deferral was not appropriate for this purpose as the applicant continues to be protected by the reprisal provisions of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested that the human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a WSIB proceeding had appropriately dealt with its substance.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that while there was overlap, the WSIB did not deal with the substance of the human rights allegations, which included failure to accommodate and harassment.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to join the application with another employee's application, but granted an unopposed request to amend the monetary remedy claimed.