Employment and Labour Law

During a personal injury trial arising from a golf cart accident, the court was asked to determine whether a severance package received by the plaintiff after his termination should be deducted from any damages awarded for loss of income.

The plaintiff argued the severance fell under the private insurance exception to the rule against double recovery.

The court agreed, finding that the severance package was obtained in exchange for the plaintiff giving up his rights as a long-term employee, and was not merely a continuation of salary.

Therefore, no deduction for the severance allowance would be made from any jury award for past or future loss of income.

The plaintiff accepted an offer to settle her wrongful dismissal and mental distress claim for $15,000 plus costs to be assessed or agreed.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The defendants argued no costs should be payable because the settlement amount fell within the Simplified Procedure threshold.

The court rejected this argument, noting the offer expressly provided for costs and the action was reasonably brought under the ordinary procedure given the complexity of the mental distress claims.

The court assessed the plaintiff's partial indemnity costs, reducing the claimed amount for unnecessary steps and disbursements, and awarded $9,716.50 in fees and $2,003.80 in disbursements, plus $500 for the costs of the assessment.

The applicant, a former member of the Labourers' Union, sought an order permitting him to make claims against the union's Benefit Trust or a return of his Dollar Bank Balance after being expelled for violating a dual union policy.

He also claimed the trustees breached their fiduciary duties.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant ceased to be a beneficiary upon expulsion, had no right to a distribution of the notional dollar bank account, and that the trustees did not breach their fiduciary duties by adopting or enforcing the dual union policy.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondents were not entitled to treat the retirement of his transition support loan as a taxable benefit and issue a T4.

The applicant argued that the loan documents, specifically a Q&A document, implied the loan would be retired without financial consequence to him.

The court found no ambiguity in the loan documents and held that they did not restrict the manner in which the respondents could retire the loan.

The application was dismissed, as the court could not rewrite the contract to impose an obligation to retire the loan tax-free.

The defendant, a former employee residing in Alberta, brought a motion to stay or dismiss the plaintiff's action in Ontario for repayment of training expenses.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because the employment contract was made in Ontario when the defendant faxed his acceptance to the plaintiff's head office.

However, the court stayed the action on the basis of forum non conveniens, concluding that Alberta was clearly the more appropriate forum given that the applicable law was Alberta law, the factual matters arose in Alberta, and the majority of witnesses resided in Alberta.

The plaintiff, former President of a private trust company, sued for wrongful dismissal and oppression after his employment ended amidst allegations of working for another company and improperly claiming expenses.

The court found that the plaintiff was terminated, not that he resigned.

However, the termination was justified for cause because the plaintiff breached his fiduciary duties by misrepresenting his role with another company and engaging in a pattern of claiming expenses from his employer while also deducting them on his income tax returns.

The oppression claim and the employer's counterclaim for misuse of confidential information were dismissed, though the employer was awarded reimbursement for specific improperly claimed expenses.

The corporate respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance arbitration process.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing it was requested in bad faith and that the arbitration would not address the human rights allegations.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and allegations in both proceedings and deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and contrary findings, noting that grievance arbitrators have the responsibility to enforce human rights statutes.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by her former employer and her union.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis of delay, as the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The applicant argued that the delay was incurred in good faith because she was waiting for the union to pursue her grievances and was unaware of her rights.

The Tribunal rejected these arguments, finding that waiting for another proceeding to conclude and ignorance of rights without making inquiries do not constitute good faith reasons for delay.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The respondent employer requested the removal of an individual respondent, an Occupational Health Nurse, from the human rights application.

The applicant consented to the removal on the conditions that the employer accept vicarious liability for the nurse's actions, that evidence regarding the nurse's actions could still be relied upon, and that human rights training for the nurse could still be sought as a remedy.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the employer is vicariously liable under section 46.3 of the Human Rights Code and that the removal would not preclude the applicant's evidentiary or remedial requests.

The applicant, whose employment was terminated for alleged involvement in a scheme to defraud the respondent's damaged goods program, sought to call the respondent's Vice-President of Distribution Operations as a witness after the respondent decided not to call him.

The applicant argued his evidence was relevant to show he also benefited from the program.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the proposed evidence irrelevant to assessing whether the applicant's termination was discriminatory based on marital and family status, as the Vice-President was not investigated and did not make the termination decision.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after his long-term disability benefits were terminated when he reached age 65.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the termination of benefits at age 65 is permitted by the exemption in section 25(2.1) of the Human Rights Code, which allows for age-based distinctions in group insurance plans that comply with the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and its regulations.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age, record of offences, and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations of discrimination based on record of offences, reprisal, and general unfairness, finding no facts pleaded to support them.

However, the Tribunal allowed the applicant's amended allegations regarding the respondent's failure to accommodate his age-related needs and hearing disability to proceed to an evidentiary hearing, directing the applicant to provide full particulars.

The applicant, a male peer support worker, alleged sex discrimination after being directed not to enter a female client's unit following her complaint about past trauma with males.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal noted that the respondent's actions were a non-disciplinary reassignment to protect both the vulnerable client and the employee, and did not constitute discrimination under the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employment was terminated based on ethnic origin and reprisal.

Both parties objected to deferring the application despite four outstanding grievances, including one regarding the termination.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievances and determined that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant sought to reactivate a deferred human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The respondent opposed reactivation, arguing the request was late and the underlying issues had been resolved via Minutes of Settlement at the Grievance Settlement Board, which included a release of Code claims.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation request, finding the 17-day delay was in good faith and caused no prejudice.

However, the Tribunal held that proceeding with the accommodation and remuneration allegations would be an abuse of process given the prior settlement and release.

The Tribunal dismissed those claims but allowed a separate harassment allegation, which was not covered by the settlement, to proceed, ordering the applicant to provide particulars.

The plaintiff, a highly successful salesman who managed a lucrative drill rig production account, agreed to a temporary layoff during an economic downturn.

Upon his recall, the defendant employer offered him a vague sales position that excluded the lucrative drill rig account, fundamentally altering his duties and compensation.

The court found the plaintiff was constructively dismissed and was not required to mitigate his damages by accepting the ill-defined new role.

The plaintiff was awarded 16 months' pay in lieu of notice.

The applicant unions brought an application seeking a declaration that the Expenditure Restraint Act is unconstitutional and of no force and effect, arguing it violated their members' freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by rolling back and capping wage increases.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the legislation did not substantially interfere with the freedom of association, as it applied broadly across the federal public sector and did not target associational activities.

The court further held that even if there was a breach of s. 2(d), it would be saved under s. 1 of the Charter as a demonstrably justified response to the 2008 global economic crisis.

The applicant, a former officer and director of the respondent mining companies, brought an application in Ontario seeking a determination of his rights to stock options under a Release and Settlement Agreement.

The respondent moved to stay the application, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter and was forum non conveniens, as the respondent intended to allege the applicant breached his fiduciary duties and the agreement in Nevada.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because the agreement was made in Ontario.

However, the court concluded that Ontario was forum non conveniens for resolving the omnibus disputes between the parties.

The court temporarily stayed the application for 60 days to allow the respondent to commence an action in British Columbia or Nevada, with the stay to become permanent if such an action is brought.

The plaintiff, a Captain in the Canadian Forces, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the military from requiring her to undergo a psychosocial assessment, and a civil action seeking damages for alleged Charter breaches.

The defendant argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff had not exhausted the statutory grievance procedure under the National Defence Act.

The court agreed, finding the plaintiff's claims arose exclusively from her military employment and were a disguised grievance.

The court also dismissed the injunction motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured her.

The action was stayed pending the exhaustion of the statutory grievance process.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action on behalf of 521 dismissed employees of an insolvent call centre.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to strike several claims, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction due to pending Employment Standards Act proceedings and that the pleadings failed to disclose reasonable causes of action.

The court struck the breach of fiduciary duty claims but allowed the negligence, conspiracy, inducing breach of contract, and oppression remedy claims to proceed.

The court held that while s. 97 of the Employment Standards Act precluded some employees from advancing wrongful dismissal claims, it did not bar them from participating in the class action for the other tort and statutory claims.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.