Bonnie Roberts Jones

The plaintiff employer brought a civil action against union organizers for economic torts, including inducing breach of contract and civil conspiracy, alleging they improperly obtained confidential employee information during a union organizing campaign.

The defendant organizers moved to stay the action.

The Superior Court granted the stay, finding that the essential character of the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The court also found the civil action was an abuse of process, as the employer had already raised the same factual issues before the Board in ongoing certification proceedings.

Five grievors were terminated by Metrolinx for engaging in workplace sexual harassment contrary to the employer's policy.

The union grieved the terminations.

Following an earlier arbitration award that was quashed by the Divisional Court and upheld by the Court of Appeal, the matter was remitted to a new arbitrator.

Proceeding via mediation-arbitration under section 50 of the Labour Relations Act, the arbitrator found the grievors' conduct egregious and deserving of significant discipline.

However, considering their apologies, regret, and seniority, the arbitrator concluded termination was excessive and ordered reinstatement with four- and five-week suspensions substituted.

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, Lisa Brown, sought an order requiring the defendant, The Bank of Nova Scotia, to produce documents listed in Schedule B of its affidavit of documents, and leave to examine and cross-examine certain bank officials.

The court found that most of the documents in question were protected by solicitor-client privilege, as they related to legal advice sought after a workplace investigation had concluded.

The court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that a common interest privilege applied.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendant, but payment was deferred until the conclusion of the action.

The self-represented appellant filed an appeal in the Divisional Court instead of the Court of Appeal over ten years ago.

After a decade of inaction, the appellant brought a motion under section 110 of the Courts of Justice Act to transfer the appeal to the proper court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and the appeal, finding that the underlying appeal regarding the respondent's compliance with an arbitration award had no reasonable chance of success.

Furthermore, the court found that transferring the matter after such an extreme and unexplained delay would cause undue prejudice to the respondent.

Following a Divisional Court decision quashing a previous arbitrator's ruling and remitting the matter back to the Grievance Settlement Board, a dispute arose regarding scheduling.

The employer sought to condition the scheduling of new dates on the completion of any potential appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The union argued for scheduling dates in the normal course, with adjournment requests to be handled later if necessary.

The arbitrator agreed with the union and directed that dates be scheduled in the normal fashion.

Following a successful defamation trial where the self-represented plaintiff was awarded $850,000 in damages, the court assessed costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, noting both parties engaged in contesting peripheral issues.

The plaintiff was awarded $11,535.16 for transcripts and a $7,000 counsel fee for the trial, but claims for hotel stays, motion filing fees, and book binding were denied.

The court provisionally fixed costs at $18,535.16, allowing the plaintiff ten days to submit proper invoices for previously incurred legal fees.

The plaintiff, a former top-performing mortgage development manager, sued the defendant bank for defamation after he resigned during an investigation into fraudulent mortgage applications.

The bank reported him to the Canadian Bankers Association's SIFT database, falsely stating he had knowingly submitted fraudulent documents, which caused three prospective bank employers to withdraw job offers.

The court found the bank failed to prove the defence of justification, as there was no evidence the plaintiff knew of the fraud.

The defence of qualified privilege also failed because the bank lacked grounds to report him under the database's criteria, and its failure to retract the alert for seven years constituted malice.

The plaintiff was awarded $850,000 in total damages, including $200,000 in punitive damages.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision reinstating five employees who were terminated for engaging in a sexually harassing WhatsApp group chat.

The arbitrator had found the investigation flawed because the targeted employee refused to file a formal complaint and the conduct occurred off-duty.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, holding that the arbitrator's reasoning was unreasonable as it failed to recognize the employer's statutory duty under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to investigate incidents of workplace harassment regardless of whether a formal complaint is filed.

The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator.

The appellant's employment was terminated in 2008, and an arbitration board later awarded her compensation.

A dispute arose over whether the employer complied with her direction to pay the funds into her Registered Pension Plan.

In 2013, a judge dismissed her application to compel the employer to do so.

The appellant appealed, but the appeal sat dormant for over ten years.

The parties recently realized the Divisional Court lacks monetary jurisdiction.

The court provided directions for the appellant to bring a motion under s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act to transfer the appeal to the Court of Appeal, and denied her request to add new claims of discrimination to the appeal.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion to compel production of documents and answers to questions refused during discovery, arguing the defendant waived solicitor-client privilege.

The alleged waiver occurred when a board member disclosed the 'bottom line' of legal advice to a workplace investigator, whose report was subsequently produced in the litigation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the board member lacked authority to waive privilege, the disclosure was merely an offhand comment revealing the bottom line of the advice, and the defendant did not rely on the advice to justify its termination of the plaintiff.

The applicants sought an order directing the registrar of personal property security to discharge PPSA registrations made by the respondent against them, arguing no valid security interest existed.

The respondent, a former employee, had registered liens after being placed on unpaid leave due to a vaccination policy.

The court found no valid security interest, granted the order to discharge the registrations, imposed a statutory penalty of $500 per applicant under the PPSA, and awarded full indemnity costs to the applicants due to the respondent's reprehensible conduct in abusing the PPSA system.

The National Organized Workers Union appealed the denial of an interlocutory injunction to prevent Sinai Health System from enforcing a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The union argued that the policy compelled vaccination without informed consent, constituting irreparable harm not remediable by arbitration.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding no error in declining to exercise the Superior Court's residual jurisdiction in labour relations.

The court affirmed that the potential harm of unpaid leave or termination due to non-compliance with a workplace policy is fundamentally related to employment and is remediable by a labour arbitrator through reinstatement and compensation for lost wages, thus not creating a 'remedial gap' that would warrant Superior Court intervention.

The plaintiff, Metro Ontario Inc., sought an interim injunction against the defendants, Unifor and its Local 414, and individual picketers, to restrain unlawful interference with its operations during a labour dispute.

The court granted an interim order, setting specific conditions for picketing, including limitations on vehicle delays at premises entrances and prohibitions on impeding emergency vehicles, security personnel, pedestrians, and access to a specific Food Basics store.

The motion was adjourned for further hearing.

Following the dismissal of the union's application for an interim injunction against the employer's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, the employer sought partial indemnity costs of $34,146.11.

The union argued no costs should be awarded as the matter was of public interest and novel concern, or alternatively that costs should be capped at $10,000.

The court rejected the novelty argument, finding existing case law was adequate to resolve the issue.

After considering the factors under Rule 57.01, including the importance of the issues, the urgent timeline, and reasonable expectations, the court fixed costs at $27,000 payable by the union.

The applicant unions sought interim injunctions to restrain the respondent employers from enforcing mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies pending the outcome of labour arbitrations.

The court dismissed the Sinai application on the basis that the labour arbitration process provided an adequate alternative remedy, precluding the exercise of the court's residual jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the TTC application on the merits of the injunction test, finding that the loss of employment or income did not constitute irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the employer's obligation to protect public health and workplace safety.

The plaintiffs, a group of unionized and non-unionized hospital employees, sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant employer from enforcing a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy that threatened termination of employment.

The court dissolved a previously granted interim injunction.

For the unionized employees, the court held that the essential character of the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labour arbitration process under the collective agreements, and declined to exercise its residual jurisdiction to grant interim relief where the unions had carriage of the grievances and had not sought such relief.

For the non-unionized employees, the court found no irreparable harm, as monetary damages would be an adequate remedy if their employment was wrongfully terminated.

Prism Resources Inc. brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that it holds a valid and enforceable royalty interest in mining claims and leases owned by Detour Gold Corporation.

Detour denied the existence of such a property interest, asserting Prism's rights were merely contractual against a previous owner.

The court applied the Dynex test for royalty interests as interests in land, finding that the language of the agreements, particularly the "carried interest in the project" phrase, combined with surrounding commercial circumstances and the previous owner's (Conquest) consistent acknowledgment of Prism's property rights in subsequent agreements with Detour, demonstrated an intention to create an interest in land.

The motion for summary judgment was granted in favour of Prism, declaring its 7.5% net profit royalty as a property interest running with the land.

The plaintiff, a shareholder of the corporate defendant, sought leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation claim under the Securities Act following the collapse of a tailings storage facility at the defendant's mine.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant knew or ought to have known of the facility's compromised structural stability and failed to disclose it.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a public correction of the alleged misrepresentation.

The press release issued by the defendant merely stated that the facility had breached and the cause was unknown, which did not indicate that any previous disclosure was untrue or misleading.

The appellant was jogging on an indoor track at McMaster University when struck from behind by a member of the Flying Angels Running Club, suffering a serious shoulder injury requiring surgery.

At trial, no negligence was found against McMaster University or the runner who struck the appellant.

However, the Flying Angels Running Club and its coach were found negligent.

The jury determined the appellant was 40 percent contributorily negligent for failing to move to a different lane when asked to do so.

The appellant received approximately $80,000 net in damages including prejudgment interest.

On appeal, the appellant challenged four evidentiary rulings by the trial judge: the characterization of lane one as the "default lane" in the jury charge, the exclusion of an email from a track employee, the exclusion of a letter to the Ontario Ministry of Labour, and the exclusion of insurance reimbursement charts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings and jury instructions.