Caroline Richard

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that denied its right to recover wage overpayments made to employees due to a mistake of fact.

The arbitrator had found that the union established the defence of estoppel and that the collective agreement provision relied on the employer only governed the process for recovery, not the absolute entitlement to it.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and that labour arbitrators have flexibility in applying equitable doctrines like estoppel without requiring a formal, detailed analysis of every component.

Nylene Canada Inc. appealed a wrongful dismissal damage award, arguing the trial judge erred in calculating the reasonable notice period by including pre-retirement service and by exceeding a 24-month maximum.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's findings that the "retirement/re-hiring" was solely for pension access and did not constitute a break in service.

The court also upheld the 26-month notice period, finding it justified by the employee's unique circumstances, including long tenure, specialized skills, age, and difficulty finding new employment.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a two-day trial where the plaintiff obtained a judgment of $138,962.22, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $67,710.50 on the basis that the judgment exceeded her offers to settle.

The defendant argued for no costs due to divided success and unreasonable claims.

The court found that while the plaintiff beat her offer to settle, substantial indemnity costs were not appropriate given the defendant's partial success on some claims and some unreasonable billing entries.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $42,000 in fees and $2,114 in disbursements.

The plaintiff, a long-term employee of 39 years, brought an action for wrongful dismissal, aggravated/moral damages, and discrimination based on sex, age, and disability following her termination without cause.

The court found no break in service despite a new employment agreement signed to access a pension, entitling her to 26 months' notice.

Claims for aggravated/moral damages and additional discrimination grounds (age and disability) were dismissed due to insufficient pleading.

The claim for discrimination based on sex was also dismissed due to a lack of prima facie evidence.

The plaintiff's mitigation efforts were deemed reasonable.

Joshua West, a plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident case, sought substantial indemnity costs following a jury verdict awarding him $710,000 in damages.

The defendant, Robin West, opposed the amount and sought costs against the co-plaintiff, Robert West, whose claim was dismissed at trial.

The court, applying factors under Section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, reduced Joshua West's requested fees, finding that two senior counsel were not required and substantial indemnity applied only from the date of his Rule 49 offer.

The court also allocated a portion of preparation time to Robert West's dismissed claim.

Ultimately, Joshua West was awarded $225,000 in fees plus $67,554.49 in net disbursements, while Robert West was ordered to pay the defendant $10,000 in costs.

No costs were awarded for a mixed-result motion regarding calling Robin West as a witness.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent failed to pay $4,500 in general damages by the date required in their Minutes of Settlement.

The respondent acknowledged the oversight and paid the amount 11 days late, immediately upon receiving the Application.

The Tribunal found the 11-day delay constituted a breach of the settlement but concluded it was a de minimis breach.

As the applicant provided no evidence of actual emotional or financial distress resulting from the minor delay, the Tribunal declined to award compensation and dismissed the Application.

The applicant, a security guard employed by Securitas at the National Gallery of Canada, alleged discrimination after his position was eliminated during a restructuring.

Both respondents requested dismissal on the basis that they are federal undertakings outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that Securitas' provision of security services at the Gallery did not fall within provincial jurisdiction, as the duties were ordinary security functions and not integral to a federal undertaking.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the National Gallery, finding it to be a federal undertaking and noting it was not the applicant's employer.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding her employment, pregnancy/parental leave, and subsequent termination.

The respondent requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an Employment Standards Officer (ESO) had already investigated and dismissed the same allegations under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal found that the ESO proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the pregnancy discrimination and termination reprisal claims, making it impossible for those claims to succeed before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining allegations for delay, finding they occurred outside the one-year limitation period and could not form part of a series of incidents with the termination.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled preliminary hearing because she might be required to attend a professional conference out of the country.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's need to postpone was speculative and did not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting an adjournment.

The complainant, who had bipolar disorder, was hired as a software program tester.

Shortly after starting, he disclosed his condition to his supervisor and began exhibiting pre-manic symptoms.

The employer terminated him ten days into his employment, claiming he misrepresented his ability to perform the job.

The Human Rights Tribunal found the employer discriminated against the complainant and failed its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate his disability, awarding damages and public interest remedies.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's findings on discrimination, accommodation, and damages, but modified some of the public interest remedies.