Employment and Labour Law

The Court-appointed Monitor sought approval of a Surplus Sharing Agreement between DCL Corporation and Representative Counsel regarding the allocation of surplus funds in the Applicant's Salaried and Hourly Defined Benefit Pension Plans.

The Monitor also sought a declaration that the Applicant is entitled to the surplus under section 79(3)(b) of the Pension Benefits Act and an extension of the stay of proceedings to January 31, 2026.

The relief was unopposed and strongly supported by Representative Counsel.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable, and granted the requested stay extension.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial where the plaintiff, Titus Steel Company Limited, was largely unsuccessful in its claims against the defendants, Wayne Robert Hack and his companies.

The primary issue at trial was whether Mr. Hack was a fiduciary and breached obligations by starting a competing business, which the court found he was not.

The plaintiff's only success was minimal, related to the taking of documents by Mr. Hack, which was easily proven.

The defendants, as the successful party, were presumptively entitled to costs.

They sought substantial indemnity costs due to unproven allegations of dishonesty, but the court declined to award them, citing the "rare and exceptional" nature of such awards and the defendants' own concerning conduct regarding the documents.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants, fixing the quantum at $161,264.

The plaintiff, a former associate lawyer, brought a motion to add a new individual defendant to his claim against his former firm and three individual lawyers.

The existing individual defendants brought a cross-motion to strike the claim against them.

The court granted the defendants' motion to strike the claim against the individual defendants, finding no viable causes of action for employment claims, defamation, conspiracy, or direct breaches of the Rules of Professional Conduct or the Human Rights Code against them.

The plaintiff's motion to add a new defendant was dismissed.

The plaintiff was granted leave to amend the claim against the firm (WeirFoulds LLP) for breach of contract, wrongful dismissal, and ESA claims, with human rights allegations tethered to these.

Costs were awarded to the defendants.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an action concerning the interpretation of a centralized health and benefits trust deed.

The plaintiffs, a local union and three of its members, sought an order that the trust wrongly denied them an annual open enrollment window for benefits, which they argued was guaranteed by their prior local collective bargaining agreement and incorporated into the centralized trust.

The court found that the trust deed, read in its grammatical sense and as a whole, and consonant with the purpose of the collective bargaining regime, did not require the continuation of the annual open enrollment window.

The court emphasized the trustees' duty of prudence in adopting industry standards to minimize "anti-selection" risk.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the plaintiffs' claim.

The appellant, Knights of Columbus, appealed an order dismissing their motion for a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration.

The motion judge had concluded that the respondent was an employee and that the arbitration clauses in subsequent contracts were invalid for want of fresh consideration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming its jurisdiction to hear the appeal despite s. 7(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, because the motion judge found no valid arbitration agreement existed.

The Court upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no fresh consideration for the contracts containing the arbitration clauses, making them invalid.

It also clarified that the motion judge's preliminary finding on the respondent's employment status was not a final determination for the underlying action.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment concerning the interpretation of a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) and related employment agreements.

The dispute arose after the appellants (purchasers of a business) furloughed one of the respondents (sellers/employees) due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which the respondents asserted was a constructive dismissal.

The SPA included an "Accelerated Provision" for a capital payment if an employee was terminated without cause, and an "Unprofitable Quarter Provision" allowing termination for cause without penalty.

The motion judge found constructive dismissal without cause, triggering the Accelerated Provision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's interpretation that the appellants had not exercised their option to terminate for cause under the Unprofitable Quarter Provision, and that their actions constituted a termination without cause, thereby triggering the payment.

The court emphasized deference to the motion judge's contractual interpretation and rejected arguments of commercial absurdity.

The plaintiff, Sarah Nahum, was terminated without cause by the defendant, Honeycomb Hospitality Inc., after four and a half months of employment while five months pregnant.

On a summary judgment motion, the court addressed the reasonable notice period, specifically considering the impact of pregnancy on its calculation.

The court found pregnancy to be a Bardal-type factor affecting employability and awarded the plaintiff five months' notice, resulting in damages of $34,194.87.

This is a costs endorsement following the Court of Appeal's decision on an appeal of a wrongful dismissal case.

The appellant insurance company sought to reduce the respondent employee's damages by challenging the reasonable notice period and bonus entitlements.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reducing the notice period but dismissing other arguments.

The respondent sought clarification on bonus entitlements and the parties exchanged submissions on costs.

The Court declined to entertain new arguments raised by the appellant at the costs stage and awarded costs to the respondent.

A sole practitioner lawyer provided legal services to the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) pursuant to a series of retainer agreements over 13 years.

When the OCL did not renew her retainer, the lawyer claimed she was a dependent contractor entitled to notice of termination.

The motion judge found her to be a dependent contractor, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that she was an independent contractor.

The court found that while the OCL work represented an average of 39.9% of her billings, this did not constitute the "near-complete exclusivity" required to establish dependent contractor status.

The court emphasized that exclusivity is the hallmark of dependent contractor relationships and that 39.9% of income cannot reasonably be characterized as near-exclusive.

The plaintiff, 2298679 Ontario Inc. dba Aurum Property Care, brought an ex parte motion for an Anton Piller Order to search and seize electronic devices, an injunction restraining the defendants from using confidential customer information, and a sealing order.

The court dismissed the Anton Piller Order due to a lack of an "extremely strong prima facie case" and insufficient evidence of likely destruction of material.

However, the court granted an interim injunction and mandatory order for ten days, prohibiting the defendants from passing themselves off as Aurum, accessing or exploiting Aurum's confidential information, and requiring them to retain and disclose any such information in their possession.

Paul Bliss, a former CTV reporter, sued CTV Television Network Ltd. and Bell Media Inc. for defamation following news broadcasts detailing sexual harassment allegations against him.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the dispute arose under a collective agreement.

The court found that while the initial broadcast might relate to employment obligations, subsequent broadcasts with salacious details went beyond workplace issues and into general news reporting.

Therefore, the defamation claim did not arise under the collective agreement, and the court retained jurisdiction.

The defendants' motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for unpaid wages, equity interest, and intellectual property ownership, arguing the claims were statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the plaintiff had discovered the material facts giving rise to his claims by December 2009 at the latest, well outside the two-year limitation period for the action commenced in January 2012.

The court rejected arguments that the unpaid wages constituted a "demand obligation" and that declaratory relief without consequential relief was exempt from limitation periods, as the plaintiff sought mandatory relief.

Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's action was dismissed.

An engineer employed by an engineering firm acquired shares in the company and sold them back for $891,820 to be paid in ten installments.

After the employee resigned and became CEO of a rival firm, the company refused to make further payments, alleging breach of fiduciary duty through solicitation of employees and use of confidential information.

The employee sued for breach of contract.

The motion judge granted summary judgment, finding no breach of fiduciary duty caused any harm.

The company appealed, arguing that breach of fiduciary duty cases are unsuitable for summary judgment and require a full trial.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that breach of fiduciary duty is not a special category exempt from summary judgment and that no genuine issue for trial existed on the record.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order staying an action for damages for conspiracy to injure.

The motion judge found that the essence of the dispute was an unfair labour practice under section 76 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that the Labour Relations Board therefore had exclusive jurisdiction.

The appellants argued that the essence of their claim was conspiracy to injure, with labour relations matters being merely incidental.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that an examination of the statement of claim did not support the appellants' characterization and that the tribunal would need to decide matters clearly within the Board's purview, such as the propriety of a grievance filed by the union.

The respondent, an employee of the National Bank of Canada, developed severe allergic symptoms in April 2010 that she suspected were caused by mould exposure at her workplace.

She ceased working in August 2011 and was not diagnosed with a specific condition until February 2013, when Dr. Patel diagnosed her with a genetic deficiency affecting toxin detoxification and attributed her symptoms to mycotoxin exposure from toxic mould.

The respondent commenced an action in July 2013.

The Bank moved for summary judgment arguing the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the limitation period commenced in February 2013 when the respondent received Dr. Patel's diagnosis.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no error in the motion judge's application of section 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002.

An employee appealed a judgment regarding vesting of stock options under an employment contract.

The application judge found that a sale of substantially all of the company's assets to Lexmark constituted a triggering event causing the employee's unvested options to vest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision on all grounds, finding that the Option Plan was binding, the sale constituted a triggering event, the employee properly exercised the options, the employee reasonably did not mitigate by seeking employment with Lexmark, and the requirement to purchase options through a holding company was appropriate.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing her claim for wrongful denial of a full-time position at a care centre.

The respondents brought motions for security for costs and access conditions to trial exhibits.

The court granted the appellant access to trial exhibits at her cost and in the presence of respondent's counsel.

The court also ordered security for costs of $20,000, finding the appeal frivolous and vexatious based on the appellant's conduct and insufficient evidence to challenge the trial judge's findings on both the limitation period and merits.

The respondents were awarded costs of $2,500 for their motion.

The plaintiff, Tracey Kanak, sued her former manager, Darryl Riggin, for defamation based on statements made during a job reference.

The plaintiff alleged malice, while the defendant pleaded qualified privilege and denied malice.

The court found the statements defamatory but concluded they were made on an occasion of qualified privilege.

The plaintiff failed to prove malice, as the defendant's testimony was credible and his statements were honest and not reckless.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's alternative claims (breach of contract, intentional interference, infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy) as they were deemed "dressed up" pleadings of defamation, resting on the same impugned publications.

The action was dismissed in its entirety.

The Bank of Nova Scotia brought a motion for summary judgment against Kurt Mull for the repayment of a loan.

The loan agreement stipulated that the outstanding amount became due upon termination of employment with Scotia Capital Inc. Mull, a former employee, was terminated and failed to repay the loan.

Despite Mull's arguments regarding the nature of the loan, his termination, and alleged damages, he provided no affidavit evidence to counter the Bank's claim.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as Mull's allegations did not constitute a valid defence to the express terms of the loan agreement.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, entitling the Bank to the outstanding loan amount plus interest.

The defendants Laari Construction Ltd. and SMS Rents brought a motion seeking a declaration that the plaintiff Carpenters Union's construction lien had expired due to non-compliance with Section 34(5) of the Construction Lien Act.

The defendants argued that the lien was improperly registered because it did not contain the names and addresses of the individual Carpenters Union members who performed the work.

The Carpenters Union contended that naming the trustee as agent for affected members was sufficient, especially given the practical difficulties in identifying individual workers and their specific entitlements at the time of registration.

The court found that the Carpenters Union had sufficiently identified the lien claimants by naming the trustee as agent for the affected members and complied with Section 34(5) of the Act.

Consequently, the motion brought by Laari and SMS Rents was dismissed.