Christine Ashton

The appellant, Binh Viet Pham, appealed the summary dismissal of his wrongful dismissal claim, which arose from a temporary layoff by the respondent, Qualified Metal Fabricators Ltd. The motion judge erred by proceeding with summary judgment despite the appellant's objection and by misapplying legal principles regarding implied terms for layoffs and condonation.

The Court of Appeal found genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly concerning whether an implied term permitting layoffs existed and whether the appellant condoned the layoff.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment set aside, and the matter remitted for trial.

The plaintiff employee and defendant employer both brought motions for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff was temporarily laid off in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the layoff was extended several times.

The plaintiff waited nine months before alleging constructive dismissal.

The court found that the plaintiff had acquiesced to the layoff by failing to object within a reasonable period of time.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the action was granted.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The applicant corporation sought to rectify a directors' resolution that declared capital dividends, after discovering its accountant had miscalculated the available balance in the capital dividend account, resulting in unintended tax consequences.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the resolution accurately recorded the parties' agreement to issue the specific dividend amounts recommended by the accountant.

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Fairmont Hotels, the court held that rectification cannot be used to retroactively amend an agreement merely to avoid unanticipated tax liabilities, and noted the applicant had alternative remedies available.

Following convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a serious workplace fall that left a worker permanently paralyzed, the court imposed sentences on three defendants.

The supervisor received 45 days continuous custody based on her pattern of non-compliance with court orders and prior convictions under environmental statutes.

An employee received a $2,000 fine for obstructing an MOL inspector.

The corporate employer received a $75,000 fine.

The court emphasized deterrence as the paramount sentencing principle for OHSA offences and rejected arguments that the worker's intoxication or the company's inactive status should mitigate the sentences.

The Crown prosecuted three defendants under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a serious workplace accident on October 15, 2008, at 45 Meadowvale Road, Toronto, where a worker fell from a roof and suffered a spinal cord injury resulting in paralysis.

The Crown charged Teisha Lootawan as a supervisor with failing to ensure protective devices and adequate fall protection, and with knowingly furnishing false information to an inspector.

J.R. Contracting Property Services Ltd. was charged as an employer with failing to ensure prescribed measures and procedures, failing to provide adequate fall protection, and failing to provide information, instruction, and supervision.

Andrew J. Haniff was charged with hindering and obstructing an inspector.

The court found that the worker was exposed to a fall of more than three metres without fall protection equipment or training.

The court determined that Lootawan acted as a supervisor with authority over workers, that J.R. Contracting was the employer despite cash-only payments and on-call arrangements, and that Haniff refused to answer lawful questions from the inspector.

All defendants were convicted on all counts.