Employment and Labour Law

The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated from his position as an Industrial Safety Specialist at a nuclear facility.

The defendant employer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing there was just cause for termination because the plaintiff lied on a mandatory security clearance questionnaire about his employment history and lied about his whereabouts during the hiring process.

The court applied the contextual approach to employee dishonesty and found that the plaintiff's deliberate deception in a highly regulated national security context destroyed the employment relationship.

The court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action, finding no genuine issue for trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking unpaid bonus payments after resigning from his employment.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff forfeited his entitlement to the bonus because the incentive plan required active employment at the time of payout.

The court found that the plan documents and employment letter clearly set out the active employment requirement, that the plaintiff had notice of it, and that the requirement did not contravene the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The plaintiff's motion was dismissed, and summary judgment was granted in favour of the defendants.

The defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiff's 80-page statement of claim, which alleged wrongful dismissal and various torts against his former employer, a legal aid clinic, its funder, and various individuals.

The court struck the claims against the employer's outside counsel, the funding agency, and two individual employees without leave to amend, finding no reasonable cause of action was disclosed.

The remainder of the statement of claim against the employer and other individuals was struck for failing to comply with the rules of pleading, with leave granted to deliver a fresh as amended statement of claim.

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal and human rights violations after her employment was terminated while on maternity leave.

The defendant moved to strike a paragraph in the statement of claim alleging that the defendant had a history of terminating pregnant women under the guise of restructuring, citing a specific similar incident.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the similar fact evidence was properly pleaded, had significant probative value regarding the claims for human rights violations and punitive damages, and was not scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.

The applicants, a municipality and its mayor, sought declaratory and injunctive relief against a resident who sent vexatious and abusive communications and engaged in unauthorized road maintenance.

The applicants argued the resident's conduct triggered the town's workplace harassment policy under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The court dismissed the application for a declaration, finding the policy did not apply to a non-employee harassing the mayor at her separate, full-time workplace.

The court also dismissed the request for an interlocutory injunction, applying the RJR-MacDonald test and concluding the applicants failed to establish a serious issue to be tried or irreparable harm.

The plaintiff, a 62-year-old senior family law clerk with 27 years of service, brought a motion for summary judgment claiming wrongful dismissal.

The defendant law firm argued that the plaintiff had voluntarily resigned after a meeting regarding workplace restructuring, during which she became upset, handed in her security pass, and left the office.

The court found that the plaintiff's actions did not constitute a clear and unequivocal resignation when viewed contextually, noting her long tenure, emotional state, and the employer's failure to make further inquiries.

The court granted summary judgment on liability, finding the plaintiff did not resign, and ordered a trial of an issue for the quantum of damages.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing her wrongful dismissal action.

The defendant argued the motion was improperly brought on behalf of the plaintiff's lawyer, who had delayed taking action for over two years due to panic and embarrassment.

The court rejected the standing argument and applied the Reid factors, finding that the delay was caused by solicitor negligence rather than apathy, and that the defendant suffered no prejudice and had acted opportunistically.

The motion was granted and the dismissal order was set aside.

The applicant union challenged the constitutionality of the Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, back-to-work legislation enacted in response to rotating strikes and a nationwide lockout.

The Act mandated the resumption of mail delivery, extended the previous collective agreement, prohibited strike activity, and imposed a final offer selection arbitration process.

The court found that the Act violated the guarantee of freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by substantially interfering with a meaningful process of collective bargaining.

The court also found that the Act violated freedom of expression under s. 2(b) by prohibiting strike activity, which conveys meaning.

Neither violation was justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

The court declared the Act unconstitutional and of no force or effect retroactively.

The plaintiff, a 62-year-old store manager with 20 years of service, was placed on a performance improvement plan with arbitrary and unfair goals.

After meeting the goals, she was offered a demotion, which she refused, claiming constructive dismissal.

The court found the employer did not have just cause for dismissal, as the plaintiff was not incompetent and the performance goals were impossible to meet.

The court held the plaintiff was constructively dismissed and awarded 20 months' pay in lieu of notice, totaling $104,499.33, finding her refusal to accept the demotion and her subsequent mitigation efforts were reasonable.

The plaintiff, a 66-year-old labourer with over 12 years of service, was terminated purportedly for cause after being arrested for off-duty criminal charges.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal.

The court found that the employer failed to establish just cause, as the criminal charges were unrelated to the workplace, there was no evidence of reputational harm, and the allegations of dishonesty and cumulative discipline were unfounded.

The court awarded the plaintiff 10 months' reasonable notice.

The defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the claims against the individual manager was granted, as the manager acted within the scope of his employment.

The defendant brought a motion to strike out the plaintiff's jury notice, arguing it was served after the close of pleadings.

The plaintiff had amended her statement of claim multiple times, adding claims for defamation, breach of contract, and bad faith, and significantly increasing the damages sought.

The court found that the substantial amendments fundamentally altered the nature of the claim, meaning the pleadings were not closed when the jury notice was served.

The motion to strike the jury notice was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent motion for the return of confidential information held by their former employee, the defendant, on her personal computer.

The defendant had been terminated and was sued for allegedly stealing over $400,000, while she counterclaimed for wrongful termination.

The parties agreed to have an independent IT expert copy and delete the confidential information, but disputed whether the expert should image the entire hard drive for preservation and whether the defendant should swear an affirmation confirming all confidential documents were produced.

The court ordered that the hard drive be imaged and preserved by an independent third party to prevent future disputes, and required the defendant to provide a sworn confirmation.

The plaintiff, a senior staff accountant, sued her former employer for wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, negligence, and intentional infliction of mental distress after her employment was terminated following a period of workplace conflict and medical leave.

The court found that the employer had acted professionally and in good faith throughout, dismissing the claims for bad faith, negligence, and intentional infliction of mental distress.

The court awarded the plaintiff 10 months' salary in lieu of notice.

Applying the principles from Sylvester, the court held that short-term disability benefits paid directly by the employer during the notice period should be deducted from the damages, but long-term disability benefits paid by a third-party insurer should not be deducted.

The plaintiff employee brought a motion to determine two questions of law following his dismissal without cause.

First, he argued that the termination clause in his employment contract was void because it excluded the continuation of group insurance benefits during the statutory notice period, contrary to the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

Second, he argued he was entitled to statutory severance pay because the employer's global payroll exceeded $2.5 million, even though its Ontario payroll did not.

The court agreed on both issues, finding the termination clause null and void for violating the Act's minimum standards, and ruling that the calculation of an employer's payroll under section 64 is not restricted to wages paid in Ontario.

The defendant, APP Capital Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for breach of an employment contract and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff, the former CFO of the co-defendant corporation, claimed entitlement to compensation under a 2008 employment agreement following the sale of the corporation.

The court applied the framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin and found that a genuine issue requiring a trial existed regarding whether the moving party was bound by the 2008 agreement.

The court declined to use its fact-finding powers due to incomplete documentary discovery and the potential for inconsistent verdicts, dismissing the motion.

The applicant alleged sexual harassment, sexual solicitation, and reprisal in employment by the personal respondent, who operated a cleaning company.

The parties had engaged in a consensual sexual relationship while the applicant worked as a cleaner.

After the personal relationship ended, the personal respondent closely monitored the applicant's work and insisted she sign a subcontracting agreement, leading to the end of their business relationship.

The Tribunal found that while an employment relationship existed, the personal respondent's actions were motivated by his suspicion that the applicant was attempting to take over his cleaning contract, rather than by her rejection of his advances.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a university professor, filed seven human rights applications against former co-workers alleging academic mobbing and reprisal.

The respondents and the intervenor university argued the applications should be dismissed as an abuse of process because the parties had previously signed Minutes of Settlement resolving all past and future human rights complaints arising from the applicant's employment.

The Tribunal found the language of the settlement was clear and unambiguous, precluding the new applications.

The applications were dismissed as an abuse of process.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB appeal regarding whether her injury was work-related.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the cause of the applicant's injury had limited relevance to the issues under the Human Rights Code, which requires employers to accommodate disability-related needs regardless of the cause of the disability.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal against his employer, the City of Toronto, and his union.

The Tribunal deferred the application against the employer respondents on consent, pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance arbitration.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the union and its representative, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant provided no evidence linking the union's conduct to a discriminatory ground.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff, a former government employee, had received an overpayment of long-term disability benefits totaling $114,644.76 after she took medical retirement and began receiving pension benefits without the insurer's knowledge.

When the insurer discovered the overpayment, it reduced her ongoing disability benefits by 50 percent to recover the debt.

The plaintiff sued for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of good faith, and punitive damages.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no fiduciary duty existed, the unintentional overpayment was not a breach of good faith, and the insurer was entitled to the self-help remedy of set-off under the policy.

The action was dismissed.