Employment and Labour Law

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for defamation over anonymous reviews posted by a former employee on Glassdoor's website.

Glassdoor brought a motion to dismiss the action under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, arguing the reviews were expressions on a matter of public interest.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the reviews regarding workplace conditions, salaries, and management style constituted a private grievance between a former employee and employer, rather than a matter of public interest.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action, arguing that the termination provisions in her employment agreement violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) and were therefore void.

The court found that the plaintiff, a sophisticated employee who received independent legal advice, entered into an agreement that explicitly incorporated ESA minimums and provided greater benefits in certain circumstances.

The court held that the 'just cause' provision did not contravene the ESA and dismissed the action against the parent and affiliate companies, finding no joint employer relationship.

The termination provisions were upheld as valid.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion for a further and better Affidavit of Documents, challenging the defendant's claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege over certain internal emails.

The plaintiff had previously received an anonymous package of the defendant's documents, which she reviewed before returning.

The court reviewed the contested documents and found that they were all protected by either solicitor-client privilege, as part of the continuum of legal advice, or litigation privilege, having been created for the dominant purpose of anticipated litigation following the plaintiff's termination.

The motion was dismissed, and the documents were not ordered to be produced.

The plaintiff moved to enforce a settlement agreement purportedly reached via email correspondence between counsel following a full-day mediation in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendant argued the emails only represented an 'agreement to agree' and that the settlement was conditional on Board approval of an additional stock option grant, which was denied.

The court found that the parties had agreed on all essential terms and that the defendant's Board had no reasonable basis to decline the stock option grant.

The motion was granted, and the settlement agreement was ordered to be enforced.

The plaintiff commenced an action in Ontario for wrongful dismissal and unpaid wages against the corporate defendants and their director.

The defendants, based in British Columbia, brought a motion to stay the action, arguing that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter or, alternatively, that British Columbia was the more appropriate forum (forum non conveniens).

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it had jurisdiction because the employment contract was formed in Ontario, where the plaintiff worked exclusively.

The court further held that the defendants failed to demonstrate that British Columbia was a clearly more appropriate forum, noting that the plaintiff's choice of forum was fair and efficient.

The plaintiff former employer brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant former employee from working for a competitor and from using confidential information.

The defendant had previously downloaded files before resigning but had returned them pursuant to an earlier interim order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the defendant had conveyed confidential information to his new employer or that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm.

The court also noted the new employer was not a direct competitor in the same market.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against Uber on behalf of drivers and delivery people, alleging they are employees misclassified as independent contractors and are entitled to benefits under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

Uber opposed certification, arguing the relationship is idiosyncratic and relying on a new Arbitration and Class Action Waiver Clause.

The court certified the action for breach of contract and ESA claims, finding some basis in fact for common issues regarding employment status based on the standard form contracts and app functionality.

The court declined to strike down the arbitration clause at this stage, ordering that class members be given notice of its potential legal significance.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion for production of the defendant's financial records, alleging the defendant fabricated cause for termination as a cost-saving measure during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendant brought a cross-motion for production of the plaintiff's employment insurance records to respond to her claim of financial distress.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding the financial records were not relevant to proving the defendant's alleged bad faith agenda.

The court granted the defendant's cross-motion, holding that because the plaintiff put her financial pressure in issue, her income sources, including employment insurance, were relevant.

The plaintiff moved for certification of a class action alleging that insurance sales agents, known as 'producers', were misclassified by the defendants as independent contractors rather than employees.

The defendants opposed certification, arguing that the proposed class lacked commonality and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure because the current arrangement financially benefited most producers.

The court found that the criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act were met, noting that the core issue of misclassification was common to the class and that a class action was preferable to individual claims or Ministry of Labour complaints.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

The plaintiff sought default judgment against nine persons in an action for constructive dismissal.

However, only the Crown was named in the title of proceeding, and the plaintiff had not complied with the notice requirements under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019.

The court adjourned the motion, directing the plaintiff to consider whether the parties were properly named and requiring her to serve any future default judgment motion materials on the defendants.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action against Uber sought court approval of a third-party litigation funding agreement with Augusta.

The proposed class action alleges that Uber breached employment contracts and the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The court reviewed the four-factor test for approving third-party funding agreements, noting that the agreement was necessary for access to justice, fair and reasonable, and did not overcompensate the funder.

The court approved the litigation funding agreement.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a permanent injunction to enforce non-competition and confidentiality clauses against two former employees and their new employer.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case for the non-competition breach because the businesses were not substantially similar and the clauses were overly broad and unenforceable.

Although there was a prima facie case of a minor confidentiality breach by one employee, the court found no irreparable harm and determined the balance of convenience favored the defendants.

The plaintiff, a former elected Vice President of the union, brought an action against the union alleging unlawful dismissal from his position and seeking reinstatement and damages.

The defendant union brought a motion to dismiss the action under Rule 21.01(3)(a), arguing the court lacked jurisdiction.

The court agreed, finding that the essential character of the dispute was an internal union disciplinary matter governed by the Canada Labour Code, which provides an exclusive adjudication process through the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

The action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Following a successful appeal by the plaintiff that varied the original summary judgment, the Court of Appeal referred the issue of costs for the original motion back to the motion judge.

The plaintiff sought $54,000 in costs, relying on an offer to settle that entitled him to substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The court reviewed the costs outline, found some entries excessive, and awarded the plaintiff all-inclusive costs of $42,000.

The Crown appealed a decision staying charges against the respondents under the Occupational Health and Safety Act due to unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial judge found a 23-month delay and concluded the Crown failed to develop and follow a concrete plan to minimize delay in a complex case.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the Crown's failure to secure a trial date in a timely manner and its problematic case management fell below the standard required by Jordan.

The plaintiff sued her former employer for constructive dismissal and human rights violations after returning from maternity leave.

The employer required her to start work at 8:30 a.m., whereas she previously had flexibility to arrive later due to childcare.

The court found that the employer had not changed the essential terms of her employment, as she was always expected to be available in the early mornings when required.

The court also dismissed the human rights claim, finding the plaintiff failed to establish family status discrimination and failed to cooperate in the accommodation process by withholding information about her childcare situation.

The plaintiff, a 65-year-old general manager, was terminated without cause or notice after five years of employment when the defendant corporation was shut down.

The defendant abandoned its defence at trial.

The court awarded nine months' notice, equivalent to $48,749.94.

The court declined to deduct the plaintiff's post-termination earnings from inferior positions, finding he was forced to accept them to mitigate his damages.

The court also awarded $7,500 in exemplary damages due to the defendant's bad faith conduct in blackening the plaintiff's character in the community.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking production of the unredacted financial statements of the corporate defendant for the years 2015 to 2017.

The plaintiff alleged the individual defendant breached a non-compete clause and sought disgorgement of benefits received by the corporate defendant.

A previous order allowed the corporate defendant to redact non-relevant information from the financial statements.

After reviewing the unredacted statements pursuant to Rule 30.06(d), the Master concluded that the redacted information was not relevant to the disgorgement claim, as the statements only provided a general high-level overview without the specific details sought by the plaintiff.

The motion for production of the unredacted statements was dismissed.

The self-represented applicant, a paramedic, brought an application seeking a declaration that the Ambulance Services Collective Bargaining Act, 2001 unjustifiably violates section 2(d) of the Charter by requiring ambulance workers to provide essential services during a strike.

The applicant argued that the legislation's purpose was unconstitutional on its face and therefore no evidentiary record of its effects was required.

The court dismissed the application, holding that a factual foundation demonstrating the legislation's deleterious effects on collective bargaining is essential, and its absence was fatal to the Charter challenge.

The court heard three motions arising from two related actions involving a former employee and his employer.

The employer moved to strike portions of the employee's constructive dismissal claim and for summary judgment on an outstanding employee loan, while the employee moved for the appointment of a case management judge.

The court declined to strike the pleadings but ordered them sealed, referred the matter for case management, and granted summary judgment for the loan balance of $45,119.05, with enforcement stayed pending the outcome of the constructive dismissal action.