Employment and Labour Law

The plaintiffs, Ontario residents, sued the defendant Alberta-based religious organizations for unpaid salary and breach of contract after their services to plant a church branch in Ontario were terminated.

The defendants moved to stay or dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction or forum non conveniens, relying on a forum selection clause in the Service Agreement designating Alberta.

The Superior Court found it had jurisdiction simpliciter because the defendants carried on business in Ontario.

However, the court stayed the action on the basis of forum non conveniens, finding the plaintiffs failed to show 'strong cause' to displace the clear Alberta forum selection clause.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend his Statement of Claim to pierce the corporate veil and hold the individual defendant personally liable for the corporate defendant's failure to pay commissions and other compensation.

The corporate defendant was in receivership.

The individual defendant opposed the amendments, arguing they were statute-barred and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the amendments disclosed a reasonable cause of action by sufficiently linking the individual defendant's alleged value-stripping to the unpaid commissions.

The court also held that the discoverability of the claim raised issues of fact and credibility that must be determined at trial or on summary judgment.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment in an action for wrongful dismissal.

He was terminated without cause months into a five-year fixed-term employment agreement.

The defendants failed to defend the action and did not attend the motion.

The court found the termination provisions in the employment agreement violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and were therefore unenforceable.

The court granted default judgment, awarding the plaintiff unpaid wages, unreimbursed business expenses, and the balance of the wages he would have received for the remainder of the fixed-term contract, plus costs.

The plaintiffs, former and current Home Financing Advisors at Scotiabank, brought a motion to certify a class action alleging the bank failed to properly pay vacation and statutory holiday pay on their commission earnings as required by the Canada Labour Code.

Scotiabank argued its compensation model was all-inclusive and adequately disclosed, and brought a preliminary motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs' expert report.

The court granted the motion to strike portions of the expert report that went beyond the expert's mandate.

However, the court found the plaintiffs met all criteria under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, including demonstrating some basis in fact that the compensation documents were confusing and inconsistent.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion for leave under section 17 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act to proceed with claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and misfeasance in public office against the Crown.

The claims arose from her employment with the Ministry of the Attorney General and statements made to her long-term disability insurer.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable possibility of success, as there was no evidence that the Crown made false representations, knew they were false, or intended for the plaintiff to act upon them.

Leave was denied for all claims except operational negligence, for which the Crown waived the leave requirement.

The plaintiff insurance brokerage sought an interlocutory injunction to prohibit a former employee from accepting business from its clients.

The defendant admitted to forwarding confidential client information to her personal email before resigning to join a competitor.

While the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the breach of employment obligations, it concluded the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm, as existing court orders already restrained the misuse of confidential information and any potential loss of revenue could be quantified in damages.

The balance of convenience also favoured the defendant.

The motion for further injunctive relief was dismissed.

The applicant, a professional hockey player, sought to set aside an arbitral award that dismissed his claims against his former agent as time-barred under a six-month limitation period in the NHLPA Regulations.

The applicant argued the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction because the claims arose after his Standard Player-Agent Contract expired, and that the limitation period was invalid or unfairly applied.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator correctly determined he had jurisdiction because the NHLPA Regulations govern all player-agent relations, even after a specific contract expires.

The court also upheld the arbitrator's findings that the limitation period was lawful and that the applicant was treated fairly.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to disqualify the defendants' counsel of record, alleging a conflict of interest and bad faith litigation.

At the hearing, the plaintiff acknowledged the relief was extreme and withdrew the disqualification request, seeking case management instead.

The court dismissed the disqualification motion, deferred the case management request pending a decision on a prior motion to strike, and awarded the defendants $10,000 in costs due to the plaintiff's problematic conduct in bringing an unfounded motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion to lift the defendant's noting in default and for a litigation timetable in a wrongful resignation action.

The defendant, residing in the Netherlands, argued she was not properly served under the Hague Convention and sought to stay the proceeding.

The court found that the defendant had attorned to the jurisdiction of Ontario by unconditionally participating in mandatory mediation.

The court also noted the defendant's significant delay in bringing her motion to set aside service.

The plaintiff's motion was granted, the default was set aside, and a timetable was ordered.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action governed by the simplified procedure.

Both parties conducted cross-examinations on affidavits in breach of Rule 76.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and sought to rely on that evidence.

The court ruled the cross-examination evidence inadmissible, refusing to overlook the unqualified prohibition in the rule.

Based on the admissible affidavit evidence, the court found material credibility issues regarding whether the plaintiff was induced to leave her previous employment and her entitlement to a bonus.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the matter was directed to trial.

The defendants brought a motion to decertify a class action, arguing that a mass opt-out of 66 out of 69 potential class members meant the action no longer met certification criteria, particularly the "preferable procedure" requirement.

The plaintiff opposed, seeking further production and challenging the class list.

The court found the plaintiff's objections to the class list meritless and an abuse of process, given the late timing.

It held that with only one or a few remaining class members, the class action no longer served the goals of access to justice, judicial economy, or behavioral modification, as individual claims were economically viable and the class action could potentially harm the interests of those who opted out.

The motion to decertify was granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, record of offences, and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance arbitration related to the same facts.

Despite the applicant's opposition, the Tribunal deferred the application, noting the substantial overlap in facts and issues and the principle of avoiding different conclusions in concurrent proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and colour.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection, arguing the application was an abuse of process because the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination of his employment in exchange for an enhanced severance package.

The applicant argued he signed the release under economic duress due to his wife's medical condition and financial obligations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's circumstances did not meet the high threshold for duress, as he did not establish that he had no other option but to sign the agreement.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of family status after she was deemed to have resigned due to absences related to childcare issues.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with by an Employment Standards Officer who denied the applicant termination and severance pay.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request, finding the ESO decision did not address human rights principles or the duty to accommodate, and concluded the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a part-time attendant, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination based on race, creed, and other grounds, as well as reprisal, after failing to secure a promotion to custodian and experiencing various payroll issues.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to address timeliness and whether the applications had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to 2008 testing, payroll issues, family status, and reprisal for delay and lack of a reasonable prospect of success.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations concerning the 2011 testing process to proceed, finding that the applicant's pursuit of union grievances provided a good faith explanation for the delay in filing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding his termination from employment.

The applicant had previously grieved his termination through his union, resulting in a final settlement where he received compensation in exchange for a full release of all outstanding issues.

The respondent requested an early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that allowing the application to proceed would constitute an abuse of process, as it sought to relitigate the same factual issues already resolved in the grievance settlement.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of various documents, including tax returns, proof of loss of benefits, spousal support documents, and medical records.

The applicant did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the test for disclosure is arguable relevance and the applicant did not object to the production.

The applicant brought an Application for Contravention of Settlement, alleging the respondent breached a Memorandum of Settlement resolving a human rights application.

The settlement included a broad release of all claims arising from employment.

However, the respondent failed to withdraw a pending application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which subsequently awarded him termination pay and damages for reprisal.

The Tribunal found the settlement language clear and unambiguous, concluding the respondent breached the agreement by not withdrawing the OLRB application.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the amount awarded by the OLRB, plus $1,000 in monetary compensation for the breach.

The applicant, who alleged sexual harassment while on temporary assignments, requested an order requiring the respondent temporary help agency to provide contact information for several individuals she wished to summons as witnesses.

She also sought to amend her Application to add new factual allegations.

The Tribunal granted the request for witness information in part, ordering the respondent to provide the last known contact information for individuals who were its employees, to allow the self-represented applicant to participate effectively.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend the Application, finding that the late addition of new allegations would prejudice the respondent.

The proposed representative plaintiffs sought certification of a class action alleging that fellows at a teaching hospital were contractually entitled to receive fellowship stipends on a tax‑free basis and that the defendant payroll management entity breached the employment contracts by later withholding income tax without grossing up compensation.

The defendant opposed certification and brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the action.

The court held that although the defendant could be considered an employer within a common‑employer structure, there was no express, implied, or collateral contractual term guaranteeing tax‑free fellowship payments.

Because the alleged promise of tax‑free compensation could not be established and damages claims were untenable, the individual claims failed.

Certification was also denied because the key issues were individualized and the proposed plaintiffs were not adequate representatives.