David Bruce Sevigny

The applicant, a city councillor, sought judicial review of a decision by the city council to suspend his remuneration for 270 days based on a report by the integrity commissioner finding he engaged in sexual harassment.

The applicant alleged bias against both the commissioner and the council.

The Divisional Court dismissed the claims against the commissioner, finding he acted fairly and reasonably accommodated the applicant's health issues.

However, the court found a reasonable apprehension of bias against the city council due to public statements and conduct by members before the investigation concluded.

The court quashed the council's sanction decision but, rather than remitting it, imposed the same 270-day suspension itself due to the severity of the misconduct and the lack of an unbiased decision-maker.

The appellant dismissed the respondent, a 55-year-old professional engineer with approximately two decades of management experience, without cause on December 16, 2016.

The motion judge granted summary judgment in favour of the respondent, awarding 12 months' salary, benefits and pension contributions in lieu of notice, and a $12,000 discretionary bonus for the year of termination.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the notice period should be reduced to 8 to 10 months and challenging the bonus award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and holding that the motion judge's determinations were entitled to deference.

The applicant Employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reclassified the Employment Relations Officer position to a higher level.

The Employer argued it was denied procedural fairness because the arbitrator failed to bifurcate the hearing, depriving it of the opportunity to lead evidence on the proper classification level.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Employer should have known classification was in issue given the evidence and submissions presented at the hearing without objection.

The plaintiff, a 55-year-old executive and professional engineer with eight years of service, brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The parties agreed to summary disposition of damages but disputed the notice period and bonus entitlement.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded a 12-month notice period.

The court also awarded a $12,000 bonus for the year of termination, finding the plaintiff was artificially deprived of it, but declined to award a bonus for the notice period as it was not a regular part of compensation.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action arising from a temporary lay-off that was not expressly permitted by the written employment contract.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, but rejected the plaintiff's position that the lay-off became constructive dismissal either when imposed or when counsel later purported to treat it as such.

The court found the plaintiff had acquiesced in the lay-off, remained in the employment relationship when the employer recalled him to full-time work, and could not then characterize the lay-off as constructive dismissal.

In the unusual circumstances, the court held the written notice provisions had effectively been displaced and awarded wrongful dismissal damages only for the period from the lay-off to the date the plaintiff commenced higher-paying replacement employment.

Following a summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action under the simplified rules, the plaintiff sought costs of over $20,000.

The plaintiff recovered $13,076.92, which was less than half of the damages sought, and had abandoned a $50,000 punitive damages claim at trial.

The defendant argued no costs should be awarded as the recovery fell within Small Claims Court jurisdiction.

The court declined to order no costs but, applying the principle of proportionality and noting the defendant's mixed success, fixed the plaintiff's costs at $5,000 all-inclusive.

The respondent union brought a motion to strike portions of an affidavit and factum filed by the applicant employer in an application for judicial review of an arbitration award.

The employer alleged the arbitrator breached natural justice by deciding a classification issue without allowing it to lead evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the affidavit evidence, including an expert report, was admissible as an exception to the general rule against supplementing the record on judicial review, because it was necessary to demonstrate the alleged breach of natural justice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex and disability discrimination, sexual harassment, and reprisal by her employer and the Chief of Police.

The respondents requested that allegations predating September 2011 be dismissed as untimely and that the personal respondent be removed.

The applicant sought to amend her application and requested document production.

The Tribunal dismissed the pre-September 2011 allegations as untimely, finding they did not form a series of incidents with the timely allegations.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend her application, dismissed her production request as premature, and refused to remove the personal respondent because his individual conduct was a central issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability following the termination of her internship.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed more than one year after the termination and subsequent communications.

The applicant argued that her delay was due to her disability, specifically chronic fatigue syndrome exacerbated by stress.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence did not establish that her disability was so debilitating as to prevent her from pursuing her rights within the statutory time limit.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The employer applied for judicial review of a labour arbitration award that reinstated an employee who had been terminated for sexually harassing and assaulting a contract cleaner.

The arbitrator found the employee committed the acts over five years and showed no remorse, but substituted a lengthy suspension for termination because the complainant did not want him discharged and another cleaner had successfully stopped his harassment by threatening violence.

The Divisional Court held the arbitrator's decision was unreasonable, as it relied on irrelevant factors and undermined the employer's statutory duty to provide a harassment-free workplace.

The application was allowed and the termination upheld.

The applicant, a nurse, sought judicial review of two decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario regarding her complaints against her employer hospital.

The Adjudicator had found the hospital failed to accommodate her disability after October 2009 but dismissed claims of discrimination prior to that date, and awarded monetary compensation rather than reinstatement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Adjudicator's decisions on the merits and remedy were reasonable and supported by the evidence, and that there was no denial of procedural fairness in limiting witness testimony to individual rather than systemic claims.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee 14 months' pay in lieu of notice for wrongful dismissal.

The respondent was a younger employee with 2.5 years of service in a middle management position.

The trial judge had enhanced the notice period due to the employer's failure to provide a promised reference letter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of a valid employment agreement but found the 14-month notice period manifestly excessive.

The Court reduced the notice period to 7 months, finding it to be a reasonable, albeit generous, period that included a modest enhancement under Wallace principles.