Employment and Labour Law

An appeal from a trial judgment dismissing claims by a steel company against a former employee who established a competing business.

The trial judge found that the employee was not a fiduciary and therefore could not breach fiduciary duties.

Although the employee breached employment duties of good faith, loyalty, and fidelity by misappropriating business documents (constituting conversion), the trial judge found no damages were proven.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's findings were open to her on the record and that her reasons were adequate for meaningful appellate review.

The applicant sought to vary an interlocutory injunction previously granted on April 4, 2025, which restrained a blockade at the entrance of its premises at 2801 Howard Avenue.

The applicant sought to expand the injunction to include multiple additional addresses and a public street.

The respondents argued that the variation required the applicant to meet the full test for a civil injunction, including the stringent requirements under section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act for labour disputes.

The court found that the context had fundamentally changed from the original April order, as the parties were now engaged in a labour dispute following a lockout.

The court granted the motion in part, expanding the injunction to include the entrance at 305 Charles Street but rejecting the broader expansion sought.

The court found that the respondents had unlawfully obstructed two entrances for unreasonably lengthy periods but did not find evidence of other unlawful picketing or risk of physical harm.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1587, upholding the Divisional Court’s decision to quash an arbitration award that reinstated five employees dismissed by Metrolinx for sexual harassment.

The Court found that the arbitrator made legal and factual errors, including failing to recognize Metrolinx’s statutory duty to investigate workplace harassment even in the absence of a formal complaint, and improperly relying on myths and stereotypes about victim behaviour.

The matter was remitted to a new arbitrator for reconsideration.

The plaintiff, Henry Brent Shelp, brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action against GoSecure Inc. The main issues were the period of common law reasonable notice and the calculation of income loss, particularly entitlement to sales commissions during the notice period.

The court found the matter suitable for summary judgment and determined that the reasonable notice period was six months.

The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages including base salary, commissions, benefits, and cell phone allowance for the notice period, less mitigation income and amounts already paid.

The total damages awarded were $163,659.92 plus pre-judgment interest.

This is an appeal from an anti-SLAPP motion.

The appellant, VAC Developments Limited, sought to overturn the dismissal of its $1.5 million defamation counterclaim against the respondent, Agin Williams.

Williams had publicly alleged that VAC failed to address racist threats and dismissed him in reprisal for involving the police.

The motion judge dismissed VAC's counterclaim under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, finding VAC had not shown substantial merit or sufficiently serious harm to outweigh the public interest in protecting Williams' expression.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing that VAC failed to demonstrate sufficiently serious harm, which is a critical component of the public interest balancing test in anti-SLAPP motions.

This case involved an action for damages by the plaintiffs (2551965 Ontario Ltd. and Cabin Country Realty Ltd.) for alleged breach of restrictive covenants and interference in contractual/economic relations, and a counterclaim by the defendant (Harold Warkentin) for wrongful dismissal.

The court found that the employer had just cause to dismiss the defendant due to willful misconduct, including verbal threats, unprofessional internal notes, and a conflict of interest regarding a client transaction.

Consequently, the defendant's counterclaim for wrongful dismissal was dismissed.

The court also found the restrictive covenants in the share purchase agreement to be unenforceable against the defendant post-termination, as the geographic scope ("Northwestern Ontario") was overly broad and unnecessary to protect the plaintiffs' legitimate business interests.

As a result, the plaintiffs' claim for damages related to these covenants was also dismissed.

This decision addresses two motions regarding discovery undertakings and refusals in a wrongful dismissal action.

Marwan Dalle sought orders for Cisco's representative to provide better answers and reattend discovery, while Cisco sought similar orders against Dalle.

The court applied principles of relevance and proportionality, finding that constructive dismissal was sufficiently pleaded by Dalle.

Most of Dalle's requests for Cisco's representative were granted, particularly concerning employment offer terms, commission entitlements, inducement representations, and the veracity of the corporate restructuring reason for termination.

Cisco's requests for Dalle were largely found to have been addressed by Dalle's subsequent disclosures.

Both parties' representatives were ordered to reattend discovery for follow-up questions, with costs of reattendance reserved to the trial judge.

Dalle was awarded net partial indemnity costs of $7,000 against Cisco due to Cisco's lack of effort in reducing the issues in dispute.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave for an additional 7 hours of discovery time for the defendant's representative in a wrongful termination action.

The plaintiff had already conducted 5.5 hours of discovery.

The defendant offered an additional 3 hours, while the plaintiff sought 7.

The court granted the plaintiff an additional 4.5 hours, resulting in a total of 6 additional hours of discovery.

The decision considered the defendant's imprecise pleading, the complexity of the case involving discrimination claims and examination of the defendant's conduct patterns, and the amount at issue.

The court declined to award costs to either party, noting the plaintiff's partial success but also the lack of negotiation efforts for the motion itself.

The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce appealed three lower court decisions in a class action initiated by Dara Fresco on behalf of 31,000 customer service employees.

The class action alleged that the Bank's overtime policies and record-keeping practices led to uncompensated overtime, contrary to the Canada Labour Code.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed all three appeals.

It upheld the motion judge's interpretation of "permitted" overtime under s. 174 of the Code, affirming that the Bank's policies and record-keeping were "institutional impediments" to proper compensation.

The Court also confirmed the certification of aggregate damages, ruling that the Supreme Court's Pro-Sys decision allowed the trial judge to reconsider this issue despite a previous refusal at certification.

Finally, the Court upheld the motion judge's decision to defer a class-wide limitations order and a constitutional question regarding the extra-territorial application of the Class Proceedings Act, deeming them premature.

This appeal addressed whether the trial judge erred in awarding eight months' damages for wrongful dismissal.

The appellant argued the trial judge improperly considered the respondent's prior service and the time it took him to find new employment.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's decision, finding the eight-month notice period reasonable and within an acceptable range, emphasizing deference to the trial judge's assessment and the holistic application of Bardal principles.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claim for constructive dismissal and other related relief.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision to focus on the constructive dismissal claim, as it was central to all other claims (intentional infliction of mental distress, human rights violation, punitive damages).

The court also upheld the motion judge's refusal to grant an adjournment and her approach to summary judgment, noting that the employer had made reasonable efforts to accommodate the appellant, which were frustrated by the appellant's non-compliance.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff, a wrongfully dismissed regional sales manager, sought damages including lost commissions during an 8-month common law notice period.

The defendant argued that sales plan provisions limited commission entitlement to sales booked and billed prior to active employment termination.

The court applied the O'Reilly v. IMAX Corporation two-step analysis, finding that the 2017 Sales Plan did not unambiguously remove common law rights to commissions during the notice period.

Furthermore, changes in the 2018 Sales Plan regarding termination provisions were not properly communicated, lacked consideration, and potentially violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for lost base salary, benefits, and commissions.

The plaintiff, a long-term employee, was terminated without cause.

The trial addressed the appropriate notice period, entitlement to cash bonuses and merit increases (both for the fiscal year of termination and during the notice period), entitlement to vesting of unvested stock awards, and the defendant's claim of failure to mitigate damages.

The court awarded a 23.75-month notice period, damages for lost bonus and merit increases during the notice period, and damages for unvested stock awards, finding the termination provisions in the stock agreements unenforceable due to lack of proper notice.

The claim for a bonus for the fiscal year of termination was dismissed, and the defendant failed to prove a failure to mitigate.

The respondent, a dental hygienist, was employed by the appellant dental practice for approximately 19 years.

The appellant required the respondent to sign successive employment agreements limiting her wrongful dismissal entitlements to the statutory minimum under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

Upon termination without cause in December 2012, the respondent received only one week's salary.

The trial judge found the employment agreements unenforceable due to lack of consideration and awarded damages in lieu of reasonable notice at 15 months.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the respondent's 2005 resignation and subsequent re-hiring broke the chain of employment, limiting her entitlements to the statutory minimum measured from 2005.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the 2005 resignation and re-hiring constituted a break in the employment relationship with new consideration, thereby limiting the respondent's entitlements to 7.5 weeks of statutory notice.

On appeal from a summary judgment order in a wrongful dismissal action, the Court of Appeal considered whether an employee's pre-acquisition service could be waived for purposes of calculating statutory termination and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The employee was hired in 1980 by Bakermet, became a one-third owner, and received $17.16 million when the company was sold to ArcelorMittal in 2008.

He continued employment under successive fixed-term agreements until termination in 2015 at age 58.

The motion judge found the employee had waived pre-2008 service and was limited to six months' notice under the 2014 employment agreement.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that statutory entitlements cannot be waived, that the termination clause violated the Employment Standards Act, and that the employee was employed on an indefinite basis despite fixed-term language.

The court also rejected the employer's counterclaim for breach of restrictive covenants and fiduciary duties.

The defendants, The Corporation of the Regional Municipality of Halton and the plaintiff's former lawyers (Mervyn F. White and Carters Professional Corporation), brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for long-term disability (LTD) benefits.

Halton argued the LTD application was late, the plaintiff's employment was terminated, and the claim was statute-barred.

The former lawyers sought dismissal if the claims against Halton were time-barred.

The court granted the plaintiff relief from forfeiture for the late LTD application, finding Halton's misleading information and failure to assist contributed to the delay.

It also determined that the termination of employment did not preclude the claim and that the two-year statutory limitation period applied, which had not expired.

Both defendants' motions for summary judgment were dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement in a wrongful dismissal action, specifically disputing the statutory deductions made by the defendant from a $25,000 payment.

The plaintiff argued the payment should be treated as a "retiring allowance" with lower tax, CPP, and EI deductions, while the defendant treated it as employment income based on the settlement wording "payable as wages and subject to all necessary statutory deductions." The court found that the parties had an enforceable settlement and that the defendant had met its obligations, as the agreement left it to the defendant to make "necessary deductions." The court clarified that the ultimate authority to characterize the payment and determine appropriate deductions rests with the Canada Revenue Agency and the Tax Court, not the Superior Court on a motion to enforce settlement.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal and Human Rights Code claims, and alternatively, a motion to transfer the proceeding from Thunder Bay to Kenora.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly regarding the defendant's knowledge of the plaintiff's developmental limitations and the fairness of the termination investigation.

The court also dismissed the venue transfer motion, affirming the plaintiff's prima facie right to choose venue and finding the defendant did not demonstrate Kenora was significantly better than Thunder Bay.

A family-owned meat processing business went bankrupt, terminating approximately 800 employees.

Two representative actions were commenced: one by Sam Caetano for unionized employees and another by Debbie and Alex Abreu for non-unionized employees, alleging wrongful dismissal, common employment, conspiracy, and oppression against solvent related companies and individuals.

The defendants brought motions to stay the Caetano action for lack of jurisdiction and to dismiss both representative actions as time-barred.

The court granted the jurisdiction motion, staying the Caetano action entirely, finding that claims by unionized employees under a collective agreement fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour tribunals.

The court also granted in part the limitations motion, dismissing the Caetano representative action as time-barred because the required Rule 12.08 representation order was not obtained prior to commencement.

However, the Abreu representative action, brought under Rule 10.01, was found not to be time-barred, but was allowed to proceed only on the condition that the plaintiffs forthwith obtain a representation order.

The defendant, Panolam Industries Ltd., brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, Robert John Kuiack, to produce a further and better affidavit of documents, including relevant documents from a prior disability claim against Manulife.

The plaintiff had sued Panolam for wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, and Human Rights Code violations after his long-term disability benefits were terminated and his employment was deemed frustrated.

Panolam argued that the plaintiff's prior disability claim and associated medical evidence were relevant to defend against the current action, particularly regarding the plaintiff's health status and intent to return to work.

The court largely granted the defendant's motion, ordering the production of the Manulife disability claims file, settlement documents, pleadings, undertakings/refusals, and clinical notes and records from specific physicians up to the end of 2013.