Carole McAfee Wallace

The appellant employer appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent employee statutory severance pay.

The appellant argued that it was exempt from paying severance under s. 9 of the Employment Standards Act because its loss of a school bus route contract to a new provider, combined with an agreement to introduce its employees to the new provider, constituted a 'sale of a business'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Deputy Judge's finding that the mere expiry of a contract and introduction of employees to a competitor did not constitute a transfer or sale of a business entity.

The plaintiff, Digital Business Systems Inc. (DBS), sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale following the settlement of its motion for injunctive relief against the defendants, Documents XMA Inc., Jean-Francois Roberge, and Cynthia Martin.

The motion concerned alleged breaches of a mutual non-solicitation agreement and misuse of confidential information after a former DBS employee joined XMA.

The court found DBS had a strong prima facie case, the defendants' pre-litigation conduct was egregious, and DBS achieved significant success on the substantive issues.

The court awarded DBS costs on a substantial indemnity scale, fixed at $28,395, payable forthwith.

The appellants, affiliated concrete suppliers, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision upholding the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' cancellation of their Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR).

The cancellation followed a history of poor safety compliance and four fatal collisions involving the appellants' drivers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's assessment of management's responsibility, the preventability of the collisions, or the appellants' safety record.

The Court also held that the permanent cancellation of the CVOR was not a disproportionate sanction given the ongoing safety problems and the need to protect the public.

The appellant trucking company brought a motion for a stay of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision confirming the cancellation of its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate pending appeal.

The cancellation was based on a poor safety record, including multiple out-of-service defects and convictions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the appellant failed to prove irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured public safety over the appellant's pecuniary interests.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal that ordered the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration for 14 days.

The appellant argued the Tribunal applied the wrong legal test under s. 47(1)(f) of the Highway Traffic Act by focusing on punishment rather than future safety.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal reasonably balanced the appellant's poor safety record against its recent remedial efforts, and that the sanction was necessary for public safety.

The appellant sought a stay of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision upholding a 14-day suspension of its commercial motor vehicle operator's registration, pending appeal.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found there was a serious issue to be tried regarding whether the Tribunal improperly focused on past events rather than current safety.

The court also found the appellant would suffer irreparable harm to its business contracts and reputation, and the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

The motion for a stay was granted.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding that the respondent employee had been constructively dismissed.

The employer had imposed an indefinite unpaid suspension and demotion following an incident with the chief executive officer.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that there was no implied term in the employment contract authorizing unpaid suspensions.

The Court also agreed that the discipline imposed was disproportionate, punitive, and amounted to constructive dismissal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

He argued the trial judge misapplied the test for dangerous driving and failed to consider the totality of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal found ample evidence supporting the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant's failure to keep a proper lookout and excessive speed in a construction zone constituted a marked departure from the standard of care.

The court also found no error in principle or manifest unfitness in the sentence, which included a nine-month conditional sentence and a two-year driving prohibition.

The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.

The defendants, commercial trucking companies, were charged under s. 84.1 of the Highway Traffic Act after wheels separated from their vehicles on a highway.

The offence is one of absolute liability, expressly precluding the defence of due diligence, but carries no risk of imprisonment.

The defendants argued that the creation of an absolute liability offence violated their rights under ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 11(d) does not prevent the legislature from eliminating a common law defence.

Furthermore, the court found no violation of s. 7, concluding that the diminished stigma attached to a regulatory offence and the absence of imprisonment do not trigger the security of the person guarantee.

The Crown's appeal was allowed and the defendant's appeal was dismissed.