Employment and Labour Law

The defendant employer brought a motion to strike a paragraph in the plaintiff's statement of claim that referenced a settlement offer made at the time of termination.

The plaintiff alleged the offer was abusive and warranted punitive damages because it withheld Employment Standards Act entitlements unless a release was signed.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the pleading raised a valid claim for punitive damages with an air of reality, as the offer could be construed as containing a threat.

The parties settled a wrongful dismissal action for $15,000 but could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought costs, while the defendant argued no costs should be awarded due to the plaintiff's conduct and the small settlement amount.

The court found the defendant fought the case aggressively and that a plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action should reasonably expect partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff $30,000 in costs, inclusive of a $3,000 deduction for the defendant's costs of finalizing the settlement.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a motion by the defendant, the court determined the issue of costs.

The defendant sought costs of $17,186.76.

The court found that the defendant was completely successful and entitled to costs on a partial indemnity scale, noting the plaintiff's conduct was misguided but not malicious.

Costs were fixed at $12,000 all-inclusive.

Following a successful wrongful dismissal action under the simplified procedure, the plaintiff sought costs of over $100,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued the claimed costs were disproportionate to the $98,576 damages awarded and the simplified procedure limits.

The court found the plaintiff's counsel's hours and rates unreasonable for a straightforward wrongful dismissal action.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $55,000 for fees and $9,000 for disbursements, plus HST.

The plaintiff sued a lawyer who was retained by her former employer to investigate her workplace harassment complaint.

The defendant lawyer brought a motion for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion, finding that the lawyer owed no duty of care to the plaintiff as she was not a client and no exceptional circumstances existed.

Furthermore, the court found the action was statute-barred as the plaintiff commenced the claim more than two years after discovering the alleged issues with the investigation report.

The plaintiff, a 69-year-old esthetician, was terminated without cause after working for the defendant and its predecessor for 20 years.

The court found the termination clause in her employment agreement unenforceable due to a lack of fresh consideration.

Recognizing her prior service with the bankrupt predecessor employer, the court awarded a total notice period of 10 months, less the working notice already provided, resulting in 7.25 months' pay in lieu of notice.

Claims for aggravated damages, punitive damages, and age discrimination were dismissed.

The defendant brought an unsuccessful motion for summary dismissal of the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff sought costs of $28,000, while the defendant argued for costs in the cause or fixed at $5,000.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity scale, noting the motion was important but relatively uncomplicated.

Costs were fixed at $13,560 inclusive of HST.

The applicant, a 61-year-old senior draftsperson with 3.5 years of service, was terminated without cause.

The employer relied on a termination clause in the employment agreement to limit his entitlements.

The court applied the Waksdale framework, finding the 'for cause' provision violated the Employment Standards Act by contracting out of the statutory 'wilful misconduct' standard, thereby rendering all termination provisions void.

The court awarded 6 months of common law reasonable notice based on the Bardal factors and dismissed the employer's argument that the applicant failed to mitigate his damages.

The plaintiff, a tow truck operator, sued for wrongful dismissal after being summarily terminated without notice following five and a half years of service.

The defendant employer alleged just cause, claiming the plaintiff stole gas and engaged in other misconduct.

The court found the employer failed to prove the allegations on a balance of probabilities and failed to provide the plaintiff an opportunity to respond before termination.

The court also determined the plaintiff was an employee, not an independent contractor, and awarded six months' pay in lieu of notice plus unpaid vacation pay, totaling $19,860.75.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding her termination.

After her position became redundant, the parties agreed to ten weeks of working notice.

The employer breached this agreement after five weeks, alleging job abandonment, and the trial judge awarded the appellant the remaining five weeks' pay.

On appeal, the appellant argued the agreement lacked consideration and its breach constituted rescission entitling her to common law notice.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the agreement valid and the breach a repudiation rather than rescission, as the appellant had already received half the benefit of the contract.

Following a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action where the plaintiff was awarded approximately $97,500, the parties made submissions on costs.

The defendant had made an early Rule 49 offer to settle for $107,000, which the plaintiff did not accept.

Because the plaintiff recovered less than the defendant's offer, the court applied Rule 49.10(2) and awarded the defendant its partial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $27,000 in costs to the defendant.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to enforce non-competition and non-solicitation clauses against a former financial advisor who had sold his book of business to them seven years prior.

The court found the non-competition clause to be overbroad and unenforceable, but upheld the non-solicitation clause as reasonable and severable.

Finding a strong prima facie case of breach, irreparable harm, and a balance of convenience favouring the plaintiffs, the court granted a limited injunction prohibiting the defendant from soliciting his former clients and using the plaintiffs' business records.

Following the defendant's unsuccessful motion for summary judgment, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought full indemnity costs of $70,777.55, while the defendant argued for no costs or costs on the Small Claims Court scale.

The court found no basis for full or substantial indemnity costs, nor for restricting costs to the Small Claims Court scale, noting the motion involved a novel issue regarding Infectious Disease Emergency Leave.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $22,840.13.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action regarding employee misclassification brought a motion to substitute herself with a new representative plaintiff.

The defendant opposed, arguing the new plaintiff's claim was statute-barred and her interests were misaligned with the class because she recently sought work with the defendant as an independent contractor.

The court granted the substitution, finding the new plaintiff had a tenable claim because discoverability of Employment Standards Act entitlements may be delayed when an employer represents a worker as an independent contractor.

The court also found her recent job search did not preclude her from adequately representing the class.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion for default judgment against a former employee for fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit.

The employee had falsified environmental site assessment reports and records over a three-year period.

The court granted default judgment, finding the employee's conduct constituted wilful misconduct.

The court awarded $629,226 in pecuniary damages for remediation, third-party fees, settlements, and fines, along with $50,000 in damages at large for loss of reputation, $20,000 in punitive damages, and substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike several paragraphs of the defendant's Statement of Defence under Rule 25.11.

The impugned paragraphs referred to 'without prejudice' correspondence and settlement offers made by the defendant regarding the plaintiff's return to work following an alleged constructive dismissal.

The court found that the communications met the three-part test for settlement privilege, as litigation was on the horizon, the communications were intended not to be disclosed, and their purpose was to settle the dispute.

Consequently, the court struck the offending paragraphs, noting that pleading settlement-privileged communications is scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.

The applicant's employer was investigated by the Ontario Securities Commission.

The applicant was summoned to give evidence but refused to answer questions about their employment, citing a confidentiality clause in their employment agreement.

The applicant applied for directions and a declaration that the information was privileged.

The Commission cross-applied for declarations that the applicant must answer the questions.

The court dismissed the application and allowed the cross-application, finding that the information did not meet the Wigmore criteria for case-by-case privilege and that the applicant was required to attend the examination and answer all relevant questions, subject only to valid claims of privilege.

The plaintiff brought a motion in writing for default judgment against his former employer for wrongful dismissal.

The court first determined that the action was not statute-barred because the limitation period was suspended under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court noted the defendant in default and found the plaintiff was entitled to damages in lieu of reasonable notice.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded a 20-month notice period, resulting in damages of $91,667.00, without deductions for mitigation income as the employer failed to meet its burden of proof.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment on the liability common issues in a class action for unpaid overtime on behalf of customer service employees of the defendant bank.

The court found that the bank's overtime policies, which required pre-approval, and its failure to record actual hours worked, violated the Canada Labour Code.

The court concluded that the bank permitted uncompensated overtime by failing to prevent it, thereby breaching its statutory and contractual duties to the class members.

The plaintiff commenced a proposed class action against his former employer for alleged failure to pay overtime, alongside a personal wrongful dismissal action.

After settling his personal action and determining that the employer had largely fulfilled its overtime obligations, the plaintiff brought a consent motion to discontinue the proposed class action without costs.

The court granted the motion, finding no prejudice to putative class members who were unaware of the action.