Employment and Labour Law

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim decision and a reconsideration decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) that dismissed most of her discrimination and reprisal application for delay.

The HRTO had directed a combined summary hearing (to assess reasonable prospect of success) and preliminary hearing (to assess delay).

The Divisional Court found that the HRTO breached procedural fairness and rendered an unreasonable decision by conflating the two hearings, specifically by making substantive determinations about the merits of the applicant's timely allegations during the delay hearing without permitting viva voce evidence on the merits.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the HRTO decisions were set aside in part, and the matter was remitted to the HRTO.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision finding that its employees were provincially regulated for labour relations purposes.

The applicant, a track welding company performing work primarily for interprovincial railways, argued its operations fell under derivative federal jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board correctly applied the derivative jurisdiction test.

The court found the applicant's work involved maintenance of railway infrastructure rather than the operation of the railways themselves, and thus did not meet the exceptional threshold for federal jurisdiction.

The applicant, a secondary-school teacher, sought judicial review of Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decisions dismissing his reprisal application under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The OLRB had dismissed the application as a collateral attack and abuse of process because the applicant had already elected to pursue the same matters through grievance arbitration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the OLRB did not breach procedural fairness and reasonably concluded that the second application was an impermissible attempt to relitigate matters already determined.

The appellant short-term rental business appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent damages for reasonable notice after finding he was a dependent contractor.

The appellant argued the Deputy Judge erred in applying the dependent contractor test and in relying on invoices rather than tax forms to establish economic exclusivity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness as the documents were produced in advance, and no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Judge's conclusion that the respondent's work was near-exclusive.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that dismissed his human rights application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code due to a related civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision unreasonable because it failed to properly analyze the distinct factual underpinnings and time periods of the two proceedings.

The application for judicial review was granted, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for adjudication.

The appellant, a teacher, appealed a penalty decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers that revoked her teaching certificate for professional misconduct related to off-duty social media posts.

The appellant argued the penalty ignored her Charter right to freedom of expression.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Discipline Committee committed a fatal error of law by failing to conduct a proper Doré analysis regarding the Charter implications of disciplining the appellant for her speech.

The matter was remitted back for a fresh hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her application for disability-based discrimination.

The applicant alleged she was terminated after disclosing her bipolar disorder and requesting accommodations.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by allowing the respondent employer to file a second, more detailed witness statement during the hearing without permitting the applicant to cross-examine the witness on the discrepancies between his two statements.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to a differently constituted panel of the Tribunal for a new hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal had concluded that his transitory ankle injury was not a disability under the Human Rights Code and applied a balance of probabilities standard to its jurisdictional screening.

The Divisional Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal engaged in an impermissible merits review rather than a jurisdictional analysis.

The court held it was unreasonable for the Tribunal to depart from the 'plain and obvious' standard for jurisdictional screening and to fail to apply a multidimensional, socio-political analysis to the definition of disability.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision denying his request to reactivate his human rights application.

The application had been deferred pending grievance arbitrations, which were withdrawn in 2018.

The applicant filed his reactivation request over four years later.

The Tribunal declined to extend the time limit due to the length of the delay, the lack of a reasonable explanation, and prejudice to the employer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable and noting the applicant was the author of his own misfortune.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his applications alleging unlawful reprisal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and unfair labour practices under the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant had been terminated after refusing to remove a social media post criticizing his employer, T&T Supermarket.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable, procedurally fair, and within its jurisdiction.

The court declined to interfere with the Board's credibility findings and noted that the applicant's procedural fairness arguments should have been raised through a reconsideration request to the Board.

The applicant union (UA) sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions regarding a jurisdictional dispute over the installation of a water-based fire suppression system.

The Board had assigned the work to the Labourers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) based on area practice, despite UA's argument that the Building Opportunities in the Skilled Trades Act, 2021 (BOSTA) created exclusive jurisdiction for its members.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The Board reasonably concluded that BOSTA's purpose is to protect the public by determining necessary skill sets, not to override the traditional factors considered in work assignment disputes between competing unions.

The applicant, a former employee of a car rental business, alleged discrimination and harassment in employment based on sex and family status by the business owners.

The Tribunal found that the organizational respondent was not the applicant's employer at the relevant time.

While one owner made an inappropriate comment, it did not amount to a course of vexatious conduct.

However, the Tribunal found that the other owner, Olga Baranova, engaged in a course of vexatious conduct by making vulgar comments about the applicant's genitalia and threatening her regarding government assistance she received as a single mother.

The Tribunal ordered Ms. Baranova to pay $2,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The employee was dismissed for cause after making a threat of violence while on short-term disability.

A jury found no just cause for dismissal and awarded 9 months' notice, 4 months' Wallace damages, $1,000 in aggravated damages, and $22,000 in punitive damages.

The employer appealed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the jury's findings on lack of just cause and Wallace damages, but reduced the notice period to 4 months, finding 9 months unreasonable for a short-tenure, non-managerial employee.

The Court also set aside the aggravated and punitive damages because the jury had explicitly rejected the only pleaded independent actionable wrong (intentional infliction of mental distress).

The appellant, former Commissioner of the Canadian Football League, sued the League's member clubs and various individuals for almost $19 million following his dismissal.

The defendants successfully moved to strike out most of the statement of claim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the claims for breach of confidence, injurious falsehood, and intentional interference with contractual relations.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, permitting certain claims for negligent misrepresentation and defamation to proceed against specific defendants, subject to the delivery of a fresh amended statement of claim to cure pleading deficiencies.

The union appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of an arbitrator's award.

The arbitrator had dismissed a grievance claiming a temporarily laid-off unionized employee was entitled to termination pay and an election regarding recall rights under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The Court of Appeal held that the proper standard of review was patent unreasonableness, not reasonableness.

The Court found the arbitrator's interpretation of s. 56(2)(c) of the Act—that a standard seniority recall clause extended the temporary lay-off and deferred termination pay entitlement—was patently unreasonable because it undermined the purpose of the statutory election process.

The appeal was allowed and the arbitrator's award was quashed.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding that the respondent employee had a fixed-term employment contract.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred by failing to apply the threshold requirement that language establishing a fixed term must be unequivocal and explicit.

The court found the evidence of a fixed term ambiguous and held that an adverse inference against the employer for not testifying was inappropriate without a prima facie case.

The court substituted a finding of an indefinite contract and awarded the respondent 8 months' reasonable notice.

The appellant employer appealed a trial decision awarding a wrongfully dismissed employee damages for the loss of pension benefits that would have accrued during his 22-month notice period.

The employer argued that the terms of the pension plan limited accrual of benefits to periods of active employment and explicitly denied the right to damages for lost benefits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the employee had a common law right to damages for breach of contract, and the language of the pension plan was not sufficiently clear and unequivocal to limit or take away that right.

The appellant, an independent contractor, appealed a trial judgment finding he breached non-solicitation, non-competition, and confidentiality clauses in his contract with the respondent consulting firm.

The appellant had allowed a competitor to submit his resume for a government contract he was already working on through the respondent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the restrictive covenant was overly broad and unreasonable, as it prevented solicitation of any client or prospect without spatial limitation.

The Court also found no breach of confidentiality, as the appellant merely provided his own skills and qualifications to the competitor, which did not constitute confidential information.

The appellants appealed a decision regarding the interpretation of a management contract.

The appellants argued that the earliest the respondents could terminate the contract was if they failed to meet the 2002 budget, and thus they were entitled to termination pay.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that the contract was for a one-year term and was renewable only if the parties agreed on a sound business plan.

Since the parties could not agree on a plan, the contract was not renewed, and the respondents were not required to pay termination pay.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order determining that his wrongful dismissal claim was statute-barred.

He received notice of termination on December 12, 1994, with a termination date of January 31, 1995, and commenced his action on January 30, 2001.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the breach of the employment contract occurred on December 12, 1994, when the appellant was dismissed without reasonable notice, as alleged in his statement of claim.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.