Employment and Labour Law

During an ongoing trial, the plaintiff brought a motion to re-open his case to introduce new evidence regarding a recent event.

The plaintiff alleged that a mischaracterized harassment complaint was filed against him and improperly handled by senior management, which was relevant to his damages claim for workplace harassment.

The court granted the motion, finding that the new evidence was relevant and material to the plaintiff's damages, and that admitting it would not cause trial unfairness to the defendants.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of disability against Federal Express Canada.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the respondent appeared to be a federally-regulated business.

As the respondent operates interprovincially, it falls under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the matter and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sexual orientation, age, and reprisal, relating to workplace accommodation and the denial of sick leave benefits.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant's union had filed a grievance based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the ongoing grievance process.

Applying its general approach to defer to concurrent grievance proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent requested deferral of the application pending the outcome of a related union grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievance.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing the substance was dealt with by the applicant's long-term disability insurer and the WSIB.

The Tribunal held that an insurance provider's internal process is not a 'proceeding' under the Code and denied the request to dismiss on that basis.

The Tribunal deferred the WSIB overlap issue to the hearing on the merits and denied the respondent's request for a summary hearing, finding factual disputes required evidence.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a notice of intent to defer the application because the facts were part of an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and reprisal.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the completion of two related union grievance proceedings.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievances, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance processes.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging harassment and discrimination by her employer.

Prior to this, her union had filed a grievance on her behalf raising the same human rights issues.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance arbitration.

Finding that the grievance was filed first, dealt with the same subject matter, and was scheduled for arbitration before an arbitrator with the authority to apply the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application.

The plaintiff, a senior investment banker, alleged he was constructively dismissed when his employer failed to promote him to a promised Team Leader position by a fixed date.

The court found that the employer had not breached the employment contract, as it was taking reasonable steps to implement the promotion within a reasonable timeframe and had paid the plaintiff significant increased compensation.

The court concluded the plaintiff voluntarily resigned to join a competitor start-up.

The constructive dismissal claim was dismissed, but the plaintiff was awarded minor amounts for unpaid cash incentive pay and a declared dividend.

The plaintiff investment dealer brought an action against the defendant investment advisor for repayment of a transition loan.

The defendant's regulatory registration was suspended shortly after he joined the plaintiff, rendering him unable to fulfill his duties.

The plaintiff terminated the agency agreement and demanded repayment of the loan pursuant to the agreement's terms.

The defendant argued the loan was governed by a prior term sheet, claimed wrongful termination, and counterclaimed for bad faith.

The court found the written agency agreement governed, the plaintiff had cause to terminate due to the defendant's lack of registration, and the plaintiff made reasonable efforts to assist the defendant.

The court granted judgment for the plaintiff for the outstanding loan amount plus interest and dismissed the counterclaim.

The plaintiffs brought motions for an interlocutory injunction and for production of documents against the defendants, who were former employees and a competing insurance brokerage.

The injunction motion was settled and the production motion was stayed.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs of over $390,000, arguing the defendants unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings and engaged in wrongdoing.

The court found the injunction component of the action was effectively spent, justifying fixing costs payable forthwith rather than in the cause.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $255,237, apportioned equally among the three responding defendants, after making deductions for services not directly related to the motions.

The plaintiff employee brought an action for wrongful dismissal against his employer, alleging constructive dismissal after the employer unilaterally added significant IT and software administration duties to his original role as a field service technician.

The employer argued the changes were a natural extension of his duties and that the employee failed to mitigate by refusing to return to work.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the employer fundamentally altered the employment contract and created a hostile work environment, constituting constructive dismissal.

The plaintiff was awarded $55,000, representing 12 months' notice, but his claim for bad faith damages was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a 26-year employee, sued his former employer for constructive dismissal after he was removed from his long-standing position as a dock supervisor and offered a newly created, lesser role as a freight analyst.

The employer alleged performance issues, which the court found were unsubstantiated and part of a targeted effort to find fault.

The court held that the unilateral change in duties constituted a fundamental breach of the employment contract, amounting to constructive dismissal.

The court further found that the plaintiff was not required to mitigate his damages by accepting the demeaning new position in a toxic work environment.

The plaintiff was awarded 18 months' reasonable notice, but his claim for moral damages was dismissed.

The plaintiff recruitment agency brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to enforce a restrictive covenant against a former employee and his new employer.

The plaintiff sought to prevent the defendants from contacting any candidates or clients listed in its databases.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the former employee was not a fiduciary and that the restrictive covenant was overly broad, ambiguous, and unenforceable because it was impossible to determine which names were in the databases.

The court also found that the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured an injunction.

The plaintiff, an investment adviser, sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal after being terminated.

The employer counterclaimed for expenses and costs of correcting trading errors.

The court found the employer had just cause for dismissal due to the plaintiff making unauthorized trades and misrepresenting facts to a client and the employer.

The wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed, and the employer's counterclaim was granted in the amount of $63,179.66.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal claim, arguing it was statute-barred under s. 97(2) of the Employment Standards Act because the plaintiff had previously filed an ESA complaint.

The plaintiff, who was terminated for alleged theft of prescriptions, also pleaded intentional torts including negligent misrepresentation and conspiracy.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the ESA adjudication scheme was not intended to bar independent claims for intentional torts, and the civil action should proceed to trial where the trial judge can determine if the severance claim is barred alongside the independent causes of action.

The plaintiffs, employees of eHealth Ontario, brought a motion to certify a class action against eHealth for breach of contract and against Ontario for inducing breach of contract, relating to the non-payment of performance awards and merit increases.

The plaintiffs also moved to amend their statement of claim to add a claim for the 2011/2012 performance awards.

The court granted the motion to amend and certified the action as a class proceeding against eHealth, finding that the breach of contract claims were not plainly and obviously doomed to fail.

However, the court refused to certify the claim against Ontario for inducing breach of contract, finding it legally untenable.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action for wrongful dismissal brought a motion seeking particulars of the allegations in the defendants' Statement of Defence and Crossclaim.

The plaintiffs argued the particulars were necessary to deliver a reply and to prepare for the upcoming certification motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs did not need the particulars to plead a reply, as they were not proposing a different version of facts.

Furthermore, the court held that particulars should not be used as a substitute for discovery, and the plaintiffs would have ample opportunity to understand the defendants' case through the normal certification motion procedures.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction against former key employees and contractors who started a competing business.

The plaintiff alleged breach of fiduciary duty and breach of confidence.

The court found that the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and duties of confidence by using the plaintiff's confidential information and business opportunities.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction for six months, finding that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The appellant union appealed from the dismissal of an application for judicial review of a labour arbitration award.

The dispute concerned whether an employee’s claim for weekly indemnity benefits under an insurance policy required by a collective agreement fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator where the employer had complied with its obligation to provide and pay for the policy.

The court, relying on its reasons in a companion appeal, held that the claim against the insurer was not arbitrable in those circumstances.

Applying curial deference on a patent unreasonableness standard, the court found the arbitrator’s interpretation of the collective agreement was open to him and upheld the dismissal of the grievance.