Employment and Labour Law

The applicants moved for declarations regarding their pension rights under a supplemental pension plan.

The respondent argued the claims were barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, asserting the limitation period began when option statements denying the benefits were issued.

The court held that the claims were not statute-barred, finding that the cause of action for pension benefits does not crystallize until the payments actually fall due and are wrongfully refused, rather than when an anticipatory breach occurs.

The plaintiff, a former investment advisor, sought to certify a class action against the defendant for unpaid overtime under the Employment Standards Act.

The defendant argued that investment advisors were exempt from overtime provisions due to their managerial character or because their compensation provided a greater benefit.

The court found that the plaintiff met all five prerequisites for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including that the applicability of the exemptions could be determined as common issues.

The motion for certification was granted.

The applicant employer sought a labour injunction under section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act to restrain picketing by locked-out employees.

The court applied the four-part test for a labour injunction and found that the employer failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as there were no criminal charges, civil actions, or disciplined employees, and the alleged loss of business was a bald assertion.

Furthermore, the court found that the police had been responsive and effective in maintaining the peace.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a 70-year-old machine operator with 20 years of service, was dismissed without cause and brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal damages.

The defendant employer brought a cross-motion to stay the summary judgment motion until it could conduct an examination for discovery.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding it had failed to put its best foot forward or present any contradictory evidence.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, fixing the reasonable notice period at 22 months and awarding $69,139.03 in damages.

The plaintiff class, comprising salaried and executive retirees of General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL), brought a class action alleging that GMCL breached its contracts by reducing post-retirement health care and life insurance benefits.

On motions for partial summary judgment, the court held that the reservation of rights clauses in the benefit documents for salaried employees were ambiguous and did not clearly permit GMCL to reduce benefits after the employees had retired.

Applying principles of contractual interpretation, including contra proferentem and the duty of good faith, the court found GMCL breached its contracts with the salaried retirees, including new hires and early retirees.

However, the court found that the reservation of rights clause for executive retirees was clear and unambiguous, allowing GMCL to reduce their benefits.

The plaintiff employer brought an action seeking disgorgement of board allowance payments allegedly mistakenly paid to the defendant, a former employee, under a collective agreement.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(3) challenging the court's subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator.

The court agreed, finding that the essential character of the dispute arose under the collective agreement and that an arbitrator had the power to award damages against a former employee.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, founders of a family-owned welding supply business, sued for wrongful dismissal after the business was sold to the manufacturer whose products they distributed.

The manufacturer argued that a term should be implied that the plaintiffs would retire upon the sale of the business given their senior age.

The court rejected this argument, finding that a term of reasonable notice is implied by law in employment contracts.

The court awarded 18 months' notice based on the plaintiffs' actual compensation, resulting in a joint and several damages award of over $1.1 million against the manufacturer and the business.

The defendant brought a motion to determine costs after the parties agreed to end the litigation.

The plaintiff had originally sued the defendant, a former employee, for allegedly misappropriating confidential information and company property.

The action was ultimately discontinued as the anticipated damages did not materialize.

The court found that the litigation was not unreasonable when commenced, but since neither party prevailed on the merits, it ordered that each party bear its own costs.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for breach of non-competition and non-solicitation agreements.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing it was premature as the defendants had failed to produce relevant documents and there were significant credibility issues between the key affiants.

The court agreed with the plaintiff, finding that the motion was premature and could not be disposed of without full discovery and the exchange of affidavits of documents.

The motion for summary judgment was stayed pending the completion of these steps.

The applicant employer brought an application to rectify a 2005 amendment to its hourly employee pension plan.

A drafting error had inadvertently increased early retirement benefits for terminated employees, contrary to the employer's intention to merely close the defined benefit component to new hires.

The court exercised its equitable jurisdiction to rectify the unilateral trust document, finding clear evidence that the amendment was a mistake and did not reflect the employer's true intention.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing his wrongful dismissal action for delay.

The action was dismissed after the plaintiff failed to respond to a status notice.

The plaintiff's counsel argued the delay was due to the plaintiff's diagnosis with a brain tumour and subsequent death, which made obtaining instructions difficult.

The court applied the Reid factors and found that while the medical condition explained some delay, it did not excuse the failure to request a status hearing or the 11-month delay in bringing the motion to set aside.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice to the defendant, and actual prejudice was found due to the plaintiff's death and the loss of evidence regarding mitigation.

The motion was dismissed.

The respondent employee was entirely successful on an appeal from a Small Claims Court decision regarding wrongful dismissal.

The court received written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $12,915.90, while the appellant employer argued each party should bear their own costs or alternatively pay $7,300.

The court rejected the appellant's argument for no costs and found no justification for full indemnity.

The court fixed the respondent's costs on a partial indemnity basis at $8,500 plus HST.

The plaintiffs, former employees of GMA Cover Corp., were summarily terminated without notice or compensation following a complex corporate reorganization.

They brought an action claiming the various corporate defendants were common employers and moved for a Mareva injunction to prevent the sale or encumbrance of the defendants' only remaining asset in Ontario, a property in Guelph.

The court found the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case on the merits of the common employer claim and satisfied the test for a Mareva injunction, inferring an intent by the defendants to frustrate the plaintiffs' claims.

The motion for a Mareva injunction was granted.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim, which alleged unpaid overtime and defamation.

The court found that the employment-related claims were barred by sections 97(1) and (3) of the Employment Standards Act, as the plaintiff had already pursued and resolved these claims through the Ministry of Labour.

Furthermore, the defamation claim was barred by absolute privilege, as the alleged defamatory statements were made during the course of the quasi-judicial Employment Standards Act proceeding.

The court ruled that both legal claims must fail and awarded costs to the defendants.

The plaintiff, an assistant store manager, was terminated for just cause after failing to prevent a workplace safety violation where a wheelchair-bound employee was lifted to a second floor using an order picker forklift.

The court applied the McKinley contextual approach and found that while the plaintiff's failure to stop the lift was serious misconduct, it did not strike at the heart of the employment relationship to justify summary dismissal.

The court awarded the plaintiff 10 months' salary in lieu of notice, but declined to award aggravated or moral damages.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a costs order denying him costs after he was awarded $12,000 in a wrongful dismissal trial.

The trial judge had denied costs under Rule 57.05(1) because the recovery was within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, which had increased to $25,000 after the action was commenced.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's exercise of discretion, noting the moving party's continuing obligation to assess the appropriate forum and the undue length of the trial caused by the unsuccessful pursuit of punitive damages.

The plaintiff, a former executive who resigned and claimed constructive dismissal, brought a motion for summary judgment for his unpaid 2011 bonus.

The parties agreed on the bonus amount, and the bank paid two-thirds in cash prior to the motion.

The issue was whether the bank could pay the remaining one-third in restricted share units (RSUs) as per its past practice and the governing plan, or if the plaintiff was entitled to cash.

The court held that the plan did not prohibit the bank from granting RSUs to a former employee, and the plaintiff was not entitled to demand the remaining balance in cash.

The applicant management company sought an injunction to enforce restrictive covenants against a respondent dentist who formerly practiced at its clinic.

The respondent had removed patient lists upon termination of the management agreement and intended to contact patients.

The respondent argued the covenants were unenforceable as a non-dentist cannot have a proprietary interest in dental patients and the covenants conflicted with his professional obligations.

The court found the applicant had a valid proprietary interest in the clinic's goodwill, the covenants were reasonable and not contrary to public policy, and granted the injunction.

The plaintiff, a medical secretary, sued her former employer, a physician, for wrongful dismissal after 12.5 years of service.

The defendant claimed he terminated her for cause due to performance issues and her refusal to accept a significant salary reduction.

The court found insufficient evidence to support termination for cause, noting the defendant's complaints were largely related to an alleged overpayment error by his accountant.

The court awarded the plaintiff a nine-month notice period, amounting to $32,676.79, finding she had adequately mitigated her damages by retraining as a real estate agent.

The applicant sought a declaration that non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality agreements he signed with the respondents were unenforceable as an illegal restraint of trade.

The court found that the covenants were connected to a commercial sale transaction rather than just an employment contract, and therefore subject to a less rigorous standard of reasonableness.

The court concluded that the covenants were unambiguous, protected a legitimate business interest, and were reasonable in their scope, territory, and duration.

The application was dismissed.