Employment and Labour Law

The defendants appealed an associate justice's decision dismissing their rule 5 motion to remove individual defendants and professional corporation defendants from a wrongful dismissal and breach of contract claim brought by former partners of a law firm.

The defendants also brought a pleadings motion under rules 25.06 and 25.11 to strike the statement of claim.

The court upheld the associate justice's decision, finding that the individual defendants and professional corporation defendants were properly joined under rule 5.02(2)(c) because there was doubt as to the person or persons from whom the plaintiffs were entitled to relief.

The court rejected arguments that the pleading was vague or scandalous, finding it adequately pleaded the claims against all defendants.

The court dismissed both the appeal and the pleadings motion.

The court imposed a 21-day jail sentence on a corporate officer for civil contempt of court.

The officer repeatedly refused to attend examinations in aid of execution despite multiple court orders, summons, and opportunities to comply.

The court found that suspended sentences and fines would be ineffective given the respondent's pattern of non-compliance.

The court also awarded costs of $15,750 to the creditor union.

The underlying dispute involved unpaid wages and benefits owed to union members under a collective agreement, with an arbitrator's award of $50,587.38 that remained largely unpaid.

The plaintiff, Amit Arora, was terminated for cause by ICICI Bank of Canada after 15 years of employment.

The Bank alleged breaches of duties of good faith and loyalty, including sharing confidential information with competitors (BMO and RBC), planning to compete with the Bank by incorporating a company (BrainTree) with subordinates, and dishonesty during the internal investigation.

The court found that Arora was not a fiduciary but breached his common law and contractual duties by sharing proprietary documents, involving subordinates in competitive plans, and being untruthful during the investigation.

The court concluded that the cumulative effect of these serious breaches warranted summary dismissal, as they fundamentally undermined the employment relationship.

The plaintiff's claims for wrongful dismissal, moral damages, and bonus/ESOP benefits were dismissed.

The plaintiff, Ann Davidson, brought a motion for certification of a proposed class action against T.E.S. Contract Services Inc. (TES), alleging misclassification of workers as independent contractors instead of employees, and seeking benefits under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding no basis in fact for commonality regarding whether a s. 74.3 agreement (temporary help agency assignment) existed between TES and the putative class members, or whether a common law or s. 1(1) employment relationship could be determined on a class-wide basis.

The court concluded that individual inquiries would be required to determine employment status for each class member, as the evidence did not establish systemic commonality.

The plaintiff, having partially succeeded in her wrongful dismissal action, sought costs.

The defendant argued its earlier offer to settle engaged Rule 49.10, entitling it to costs from the offer date.

The court found the defendant's offer did not trigger Rule 49.10 due to an uncertain release condition, following D'Anscenzo v. Nichols.

Despite divided success, the plaintiff was deemed the successful party.

However, due to significant divided success (failure to prove damages for loss of book of business) and the plaintiff's rejection of a near-mirror offer, her costs were significantly reduced.

The court awarded the plaintiff 30% of her partial indemnity costs, totaling $72,000.00.

The appellant, a former employee, appealed a lower court decision regarding a share purchase agreement with his former employer.

The dispute centered on interest payments, alleged breach of good faith, and repudiation of the agreement.

The application judge found no breach of good faith or repudiation, ordered payment of overdue interest, T5 form corrections, and post-judgment interest, but denied pre-judgment interest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the findings on good faith and repudiation, affirming that the employer's failure to pay some interest did not constitute repudiation as principal payments continued.

However, the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's decision on pre-judgment interest, ordering it at the rate set out in the agreement.

The defendant, Farm Mutual Reinsurance Plan Inc. (FMRP), brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, 2496300 Ontario Inc. (249), under Rule 56.01(1)(d) due to 249's insufficient assets. 249 did not dispute its lack of assets but argued against the order due to FMRP's unreasonable delay in bringing the motion, FMRP's alleged causation of 249's financial state, and 249's strong chance of success.

The court found FMRP's delay unreasonable, limiting the security to future costs.

The court also found that 249 failed to establish a "good chance of success" in overturning its independent contractor agreement.

The motion was granted in part, ordering 249 to post $50,000 for FMRP's future partial indemnity costs and to pay $15,000 in partial indemnity costs for the motion itself.

The defendants moved to stay or dismiss the action, arguing the causes of action were subject to an arbitration agreement.

The plaintiff contended the arbitration clause was invalid and unenforceable due to contracting out of the Employment Standards Act, inclusion of a non-party (Catalyst), and unconscionability.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the arbitration agreement invalid because it illegally contracted out of the ESA's complaint investigation process, which is an employment standard.

The court also noted that separating the issues for Catalyst was not reasonable.

The appellants (defendants at trial) appealed a judgment that awarded damages to the respondent (plaintiff at trial) for breach of a fixed-term independent contractor agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the contract was clear and unambiguous, including the 72-month fixed term and the absence of a termination clause.

However, the Court found that the trial judge erred in holding that independent contractors do not have a duty to mitigate damages, distinguishing them from employees in fixed-term contracts.

Despite this error, the appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to meet their burden of proving that the respondent did not mitigate his damages.

The appellant employer terminated the respondent employee for just cause following an investigation into a co-worker's complaint of sexual harassment.

The employee refused to apologize for the inappropriate comments, although he agreed to sensitivity training.

The trial judge found the termination was not justified, awarding damages in lieu of notice.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the trial judge erred in failing to properly apply the just cause test, specifically by not characterizing the employee's conduct as sexual harassment and by focusing solely on the refusal to apologize.

The Court determined that the employee's sexually harassing comments, coupled with his lack of remorse and refusal to comply with the employer's reasonable disciplinary requirement of an apology, constituted an irreparable breakdown in the employment relationship, justifying termination for cause.

The appeal was allowed, and the employee's claim was dismissed.

The appellant employer appealed the dismissal of its motion for summary judgment seeking to enforce a release signed by the respondent employee upon his dismissal.

The release purported to waive any claim for long-term disability benefits.

The motion judge found the release unconscionable and unenforceable as it related to the long-term disability claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in determining unconscionability on summary judgment.

The court held that the issue of unconscionability and enforceability of the release was a genuine issue requiring trial determination.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee damages for wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge found no cause for termination and awarded damages based on a 19-month notice period, a 2015 bonus, aggravated damages of $25,000, and punitive damages of $100,000.

The appellant challenged each component of the award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact.

The court upheld the trial judge's reasoning on the notice period, bonus entitlement, aggravated damages based on the employer's threatening conduct and bad faith, and punitive damages reflecting the employer's strategic use of a counter-claim to intimidate the employee.

This appeal concerns the closure of a manufacturing plant and the resulting mass termination of employees.

The central issues relate to the timing of Form 1 notice requirements under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, the effect of overtime hours on working notice, and the validity of termination notices for employees retained beyond the statutory 13-week temporary work period.

The employer gave employees over one year's notice of termination but failed to file the required Form 1 notice with the director until more than a year later.

The motion judge found the employer's entire notice period invalid.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the Form 1 notice requirement arises only at the beginning of the statutory minimum notice period, not when the employer gives notice to employees.

However, the court upheld findings regarding overtime worked in violation of the ESA and the requirement for fresh notice when temporary work exceeds 13 weeks.

The appellants, placement agencies, appealed tax assessments by the Minister of Revenue under the Employer Health Tax Act, arguing they were not the employers of temporary workers supplied to the federal government.

The court considered the tripartite relationship between the agency, the worker, and the client, and the definition of "employer" under the EHTA.

The court found that the appellants were the only entities with contractual obligations to pay the workers, and therefore were the employers for the purposes of the Act.

The appeals were dismissed.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal claim.

The plaintiff opposed this motion and sought to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim for inconvenience damages.

The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding the wrongful dismissal claim, including whether the plaintiff was dismissed and the reasonableness of mitigation efforts, which required a trial.

Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

Conversely, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the defendants' counterclaim for inconvenience damages, as no evidence supported it, and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, dismissing the counterclaim.

The court, on its own initiative under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considered dismissing the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff's submissions revealed that her underlying claim for wrongful dismissal had been resolved over a decade prior through Minutes of Settlement, which included a full release and indemnity.

The court found no basis for the defamation claim pursued and determined that any potential claims were statute-barred by the Limitations Act.

Consequently, the action was dismissed.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $35,000.

The defendant argued for proportionality and costs on the Small Claims Court scale, asserting the plaintiff did not achieve a more favourable result than their settlement offers.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments, finding that the plaintiff's judgment was indeed more favourable than their settlement offers.

The court also dismissed the proportionality argument, emphasizing that a just result is paramount and that the defendant's "hardball litigation" tactics contributed to the costs.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, an automotive technician, was terminated for cause by the defendant dealership for intentionally misrepresenting the need for brake replacement on a customer's vehicle to generate lucrative work.

The plaintiff sued for common law wrongful dismissal damages and statutory termination/severance pay.

The court found the plaintiff's testimony not credible and concluded that his actions were driven by greed and constituted intentional misrepresentation, striking at the heart of the employment relationship.

Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding just cause for dismissal and that his conduct met the 'wilful misconduct' exception under the Employment Standards Act, disentitling him to statutory payments.

This decision concerns the judicial approval of a class action settlement, legal fees for class counsel, and an honorarium for the representative plaintiff in a misclassification overtime class action against BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. The defendant agreed to pay $12 million for class member compensation and $500,000 for administration costs.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, falling within a zone of reasonableness established by comparable U.S. settlements.

A 25% contingency fee for class counsel and a $10,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff were also approved.

The plaintiff sought default judgment against the defendant for breach of a settlement agreement following employment termination.

The defendant failed to make all biweekly salary payments as agreed.

The plaintiff claimed fundamental breach, rescission, or repudiation to revive the original employment contract's termination provisions, seeking significantly higher damages.

The court found a breach of the settlement agreement but rejected the claims for fundamental breach, rescission, and repudiation, concluding that the plaintiff had received substantially the benefit of the settlement.

Damages were awarded for the unpaid balance of the settlement agreement, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs.