Employment and Labour Law

The applicant's union filed a request to intervene in an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, noting that a union nearly always has an interest in a human rights application brought by an employee in its bargaining unit, and there were no exceptional circumstances to deviate from the Tribunal's usual practice.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment contrary to the Human Rights Code after his employment was terminated following an incident where he intervened in an argument between a manager and a co-worker.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss as the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination or explain how the respondent's behaviour related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Code.

Finding no link between the allegations and a reprisal under the Code, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged that the respondent union engaged in a reprisal contrary to section 8 of the Human Rights Code by withdrawing his grievance after he refused to withdraw a separate human rights application against his former employer.

A summary hearing was held to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence of collusion between the union and the employer, nor any evidence that the union intended to retaliate against the applicant for pursuing his human rights application.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex when she was not hired as a probationary firefighter.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement requiring the applicant to pass a work-related fitness assessment.

A dispute arose over whether the applicant met the required fitness standards, with the respondent arguing she failed to meet its specific aerobic standard, while the applicant argued she passed the independent assessment as required by the settlement.

Both parties filed applications for contravention of settlement.

The Tribunal interpreted the settlement in favour of the applicant, finding that the agreement required her to pass the independent fitness assessment chosen by the respondent, rather than the specific standards set out in a former By-Law.

The applicant, a bus driver, filed a human rights application against her employer.

The respondent employer requested the application be dismissed on the basis that it is a federally regulated undertaking engaged in interprovincial road transportation.

After reviewing written submissions, the Tribunal found that the respondent is a federally-regulated business.

As the Human Rights Code only applies to matters within provincial jurisdiction, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant alleged she was terminated from her employment at a coffee shop because of her pregnancy, relying on text messages from a co-worker stating the owner felt she could not do the job as she got bigger.

The Tribunal found that the co-owner who made the termination decision was unaware of the applicant's pregnancy and dismissed her for performance reasons.

The Tribunal further held that even if the co-worker's false text messages constituted harassment under the Human Rights Code, the employer could not be held vicariously liable for an employee's harassment under section 46.3(1).

The applicant brought a request to remove his immediate supervisor as a personal respondent and to add his former personal partner and former Board member of the respondent organization as a personal respondent in an application alleging sex discrimination and sexual harassment.

The Tribunal applied the established factors for adding and removing parties.

Finding that the organizational respondent could be held liable for the supervisor's conduct and that the proposed new respondent's individual conduct was a central issue, the Tribunal granted both requests and amended the style of cause accordingly.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging employment discrimination, the Tribunal addressed three requests for orders.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's unopposed request to amend her application to seek additional compensation.

The Tribunal also ordered both parties to produce arguably relevant documents, including specific emails, meeting calendars, and redacted client work product, while clarifying that medical documentation need only be disclosed if the applicant intends to rely on it for her claim of injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

Le requérant, un enseignant, a déposé une requête alléguant avoir été victime de harcèlement, de discrimination et de représailles fondés sur la race, la couleur, le lieu d'origine, la citoyenneté et la croyance de la part du conseil scolaire et de certains de ses employés.

Il prétendait être la cible d'un complot complexe orchestré par le directeur de l'école.

Le Tribunal a conclu que les allégations de complot n'avaient aucun fondement raisonnable et que le requérant interprétait à tort les interactions avec ses collègues et les élèves.

Bien qu'un commentaire raciste ait vraisemblablement été fait par le directeur à une représentante syndicale, ce commentaire n'a pas été adressé au requérant et ne constituait pas du harcèlement au sens du Code.

La requête a été rejetée.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 31.03(2)(a) to compel the defendant hospital to produce an independent contractor physician as its representative for examination for discovery.

The plaintiff argued the physician was the primary actor in his constructive dismissal claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the definition of 'officer, director, or employee' can be expanded in limited circumstances, the hospital's proposed representative (the Director of Medical Affairs) had sufficient knowledge of the internal matters at issue, including the hospital's response to complaints, workplace investigations, and a Ministry audit.

The applicant company sought an order to terminate a supplementary retirement plan trust fund and have the remaining assets distributed to it.

The trust fund was established to ensure employees transferred from a predecessor company would not be adversely affected regarding their pension entitlements.

The trustee refused to consent to the termination, citing a lack of evidence that the participants had received their full entitlements.

The court dismissed the company's application, finding that at least one participant had demonstrated a shortfall, and directed the trustee to obtain actuarial calculations for other participants before any remaining balance could be returned to the company.

The plaintiffs, former employees of the defendant, sought a determination of their entitlement to monies under a carried interest plan related to a private equity fund.

They argued that their entitlements should be calculated based on their points at the time of each distribution and that the award of additional points after their departure was unduly dilutive and contravened the plan.

The court found that the plan's terms, including subsequent letters agreed to by the plaintiffs, contemplated calculating entitlements based on total points at the end of the plan.

The court also held that the defendant had broad discretion to award points and did not contravene the plan by awarding points after the plaintiffs' departure to reward other participants for their contributions.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for long-term disability benefits, mental distress, and punitive damages.

The plaintiff alleged she was totally disabled due to psychiatric and psychological problems caused by workplace harassment from a co-worker.

The insurer argued the plaintiff was not medically disabled but merely unable to work around her harasser.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed regarding whether the plaintiff met the test for total disability and whether there was a reasonable cause of action for mental distress and punitive damages.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, arguing they offended s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act by referring to the contents and outcomes of a College of Nurses discipline proceeding.

The plaintiff argued the Court of Appeal had previously granted leave to include these facts.

The court held that s. 36(3) provides an absolute prohibition against admitting records or decisions of College proceedings in civil actions.

The motion was granted, and the impugned portions of the pleadings were struck.

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident who was transferred to work in New York for a subsidiary of an Ontario corporation, brought an action in Ontario for wrongful dismissal and human rights violations after her employment was terminated.

The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action for lack of jurisdiction or on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The court found that it had jurisdiction simpliciter because the Ontario parent corporation exercised effective control over the plaintiff's employment and the employment contract was connected to Ontario.

However, the court declined to exercise its jurisdiction, finding that New York was the clearly more appropriate forum because the key witnesses, evidence, and factual matters at the core of the dispute were located there.

The action was permanently stayed.

The defendant, a former investment advisor, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff employer's action for breach of contract.

The plaintiff sought to recover amounts paid to settle a client's lawsuit, relying on an indemnity clause in the defendant's employment contract.

The defendant argued the claim was statute-barred under s. 18 of the Limitations Act, 2002, which imposes a two-year limitation period for contribution and indemnity claims running from the date the first alleged wrongdoer is served.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's action was for breach of contract, not a claim for contribution and indemnity between wrongdoers.

Therefore, s. 18 did not apply, and the limitation period began to run when the settlement was reached, making the action timely.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion for an interlocutory injunction against the vendor of its IT business and several former employees who joined a newly established direct competitor.

The vendor had signed a non-competition and non-solicitation agreement upon the sale of the business.

The court found that the strong prima facie case standard applied to the restrictive covenant in the context of a sale of a business.

The court held that the non-competition clause was reasonable, except for a 10 km geographic extension which was severed using the blue-pencil doctrine.

The court granted the injunction against the vendor and the other defendants, finding they were impressed with fiduciary duties, and ordered the preservation and forensic review of electronic devices due to a strong prima facie case of misappropriation of confidential information.

The plaintiff sought an interim injunction and preservation order against former employees who started a competing realty tax business, alleging breach of non-competition and non-solicitation agreements.

The court found a serious issue to be tried but concluded the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as any lost sales or market share could be compensated in damages.

The balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

The court dismissed the motion for an interim injunction and forensic inspection but ordered the defendants to preserve any documents and devices belonging to the plaintiff.

The defendant successfully moved for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action as statute-barred.

The defendant sought costs of $37,462 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff, acting in person, failed to provide costs submissions despite extensions.

The court found the defendant's requested costs excessive given the motion's brevity and lack of complexity.

Applying Rule 57.01, the court fixed the defendant's costs at $24,196 inclusive of disbursements.

The moving party union appealed a decision of a Claims Officer in a CCAA proceeding.

The Claims Officer had determined that a motion in annulment brought by the union in Quebec regarding an arbitration award for lockout damages was not meritorious.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Claims Officer applied the correct standard and made no error in principle or law in concluding that the arbitrator had properly exercised his jurisdiction.