Employment and Labour Law

The appellant School Board appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's finding that it failed to accommodate the respondent employee's disability and ordering her reinstatement.

The employee had developed a psychiatric impairment due to the stress of her position and was unable to return to her previous role.

The Tribunal found that the School Board failed to accommodate her by not placing her in available alternative positions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decisions on both liability and the remedy of reinstatement were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellant police officer was found guilty of misconduct under the Police Services Act.

The hearing officer, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, and the Divisional Court all applied a balance of probabilities standard of proof.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that it was bound by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Penner, which established that the standard of proof in PSA hearings is a higher standard of 'clear and convincing evidence', not a balance of probabilities.

The appeal was granted and the matter remitted to the Commission.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action.

He had been terminated for cause after bypassing a safety device on a machine, following a history of progressive discipline for safety violations.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge relied on unpleaded grounds, made palpable and overriding factual errors, and failed to resolve evidentiary conflicts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors and concluding that the trial judge's findings on the appellant's misconduct were well-supported by the evidence.

The moving party, United Steelworkers Union Local 2251, sought a stay of a CCAA judge's order establishing a summary process with condensed timelines for the resolution of grievance-related claims, pending its motion for leave to appeal.

The union argued the process altered the collective agreement contrary to s. 33 of the CCAA and that it would suffer irreparable harm due to the workload and deadlines.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no serious question to be determined as leave to appeal was unlikely to be granted, no irreparable harm as avenues for assistance existed, and the balance of convenience favoured the applicants' restructuring efforts.

The appellant was employed under a five-year fixed-term contract and was terminated without cause after 23 months.

The motion judge found the early termination clause unenforceable and awarded common law reasonable notice damages subject to mitigation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that where an employment contract is for a fixed term and lacks an enforceable early termination provision, the employee is entitled to the salary and benefits for the unexpired portion of the term.

Furthermore, the court held that there is no duty to mitigate damages arising from the early termination of a fixed-term contract.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order enforcing the terms of a settlement agreement regarding the respondent's claim for amounts owed upon termination of employment.

The appellants argued the settlement should not be enforced due to the respondent's alleged post-termination breach of a non-compete clause.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the alleged breach was not part of the settlement and that a boilerplate preamble could not reasonably be interpreted to include it.

The appellant sued the Government of Nunavut in Ontario for wrongful dismissal.

The motion judge found no real and substantial connection to Ontario and that Nunavut was the more appropriate forum.

On appeal, the appellant argued Ontario was a 'forum of necessity' because returning to Nunavut would trigger severe mental illness symptoms.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that the appellant's mental health challenges did not rise to the exceptional level required for the forum of necessity doctrine, noting that accommodations could be sought in a Nunavut court.

The appellant was terminated for cause after making violent threats to fellow employees.

He appealed, arguing his conduct was influenced by a mental disability and his termination violated the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the employer was unaware of the disability at the time of termination and fired him solely for workplace violence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the termination for just cause was upheld.

The appellants, representing regional airline pilots, sued Air Canada pilots for unlawful act conspiracy, alleging they unlawfully prevented the implementation of a merged seniority list.

The trial judge dismissed the claims, finding that some defendants committed no unlawful acts due to their right to dissent, and that the unlawful acts of others did not cause the loss of a chance to implement the list because Air Canada would never have agreed to it.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding that the rank-and-file members did not breach their union contracts and that the chance of implementing the merged list was de minimis.

The appellant sought to add the respondent as a defendant to an action for unpaid benefits.

The motion judge declined to add the respondent as a party.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that any liability the respondent might have for the unpaid benefits stems from a collective agreement and would be arbitrable, meaning the respondent is not a proper party to the action.

The Toronto Chief of Police issued an order requiring suspended officers to report twice daily at police headquarters.

The Toronto Police Association filed a policy grievance challenging the reasonableness of the order.

The arbitrator concluded the order was not arbitrable as it fell within the Chief's exclusive statutory authority over operational matters.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Board's appeal, agreeing that the arbitrator's interpretation of the Police Services Act and the collective agreement was unreasonable, particularly her failure to apply established jurisprudence regarding the balance between management rights and working conditions.

The appellant, a former probationary employee of the National Research Council, brought a defamation action against his former employer and colleagues regarding statements made in a 'Release on Probation' document.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding it was barred by the grievance scheme under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, lacked evidence of defamation, and was protected by qualified privilege.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusions.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her action for long-term disability benefits.

The motion judge had dismissed the action on the basis of a contractual one-year limitation period, failure to meet qualifying conditions, and the statutory two-year limitation period.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in relying on the contractual limitation period without making necessary findings under section 22 of the Limitations Act, 2002.

However, the Court upheld the dismissal because the appellant failed to meet the policy's qualifying conditions and her action was barred by the statutory two-year limitation period.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an Information and Privacy Commissioner order.

The order required the Ministry to disclose records containing the full names of Family Responsibility Office (FRO) employees to a requester.

The appellants argued that disclosure posed a health and safety risk to the employees and conflicted with a prior Grievance Settlement Board order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Commissioner reasonably concluded that the evidence did not establish a reasonable expectation of harm to the employees, and that the disclosure order did not conflict with the prior grievance settlement.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action and the judgment against him on the respondents' counterclaim for expense account monies.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in allowing two witnesses to testify who were not on the pre-trial report, finding just cause for termination without progressive discipline, and calculating the counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly exercised his discretion regarding the witnesses, and that the appellant's unauthorized trades and dishonesty justified termination without progressive discipline.

The trial judge's calculation of the counterclaim was supported by the facts.

The appellants sought to certify a class action claiming unpaid overtime on behalf of Investment Advisors and Associate Investment Advisors employed by the respondents.

The motion judge and Divisional Court dismissed the certification motion, finding that eligibility for overtime pay could not be determined as a common issue because it required an individual assessment of each employee's duties, autonomy, and managerial responsibilities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no material misapprehension of evidence and that the lower courts correctly applied the legal principles governing the common issue requirement under s. 5(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The appellants, unionized masonry contractors, appealed an order staying their action against the respondents and denying injunctive relief.

The appellants sought to challenge the legality of a Memorandum of Agreement and collective agreements that prohibited independent contractor arrangements with individual bricklayers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the essential character of the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board and that the appellants had avenues within the labour relations regime to challenge the agreements.

The appellant appealed a finding of contempt of court and a sentence of 20 days' imprisonment for breaching an injunction.

The injunction prohibited the appellant from releasing a disparaging press release containing confidential business information and ordered her to provide a list of persons to whom she had disclosed the information.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had knowingly and deliberately breached both the letter and spirit of the injunction by failing to instruct her agent to halt the distribution of the press release and by refusing to provide the required list.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as no error in principle was demonstrated.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding it had constructively dismissed the respondent employee by transferring him from Vice President of Operations to Purchasing Manager.

The trial judge awarded 24 months' notice and found the employee was not required to mitigate by accepting the new role.

The Court of Appeal upheld the constructive dismissal finding and the notice period.

On mitigation, the Court held that while the principle of efficient breach might apply, the employer failed to trigger the mitigation duty because it did not offer the employee a clear opportunity to work out the notice period after he claimed constructive dismissal.

The appeal was dismissed.

The corporate defendant was found liable at trial for terminating the contracts of dependent contractor taxi drivers without notice.

The trial judge also found the individual directors liable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the finding of liability against the individual directors, holding that they were not parties to the contract and there was no evidence of tortious conduct such as intentional interference with economic relations or inducing breach of contract.