David Bannon

The defendants brought a motion to compel answers to five questions refused by the plaintiff during an examination for discovery in a wrongful dismissal and breach of contract action.

The refused questions related to the income tax returns of the plaintiff's wife, the financial statements of a family trust, and details regarding the plaintiff's pension from a previous employer.

The court upheld all five refusals, finding the requested information either irrelevant to the pleadings or too far removed to warrant disclosure.

The defendants were ordered to pay costs of $6,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff, General Motors of Canada Company, sought an injunction to restrain the defendants, including Unifor Canada and several individuals, from obstructing access to its headquarters.

The defendants had established a blockade following GM's announcement of a plant closure.

The court applied the three-part test for injunctive relief in labour disputes, finding that while GM established a prima facie case of nuisance, it failed to demonstrate irreparable harm not compensable by damages.

The court also considered the balance of convenience, acknowledging the significant impact of GM's decisions on autoworkers' livelihoods.

Ultimately, the court declined to exercise its discretion to grant the injunction.

Following a motion in which the defendants successfully obtained a stay of the civil action pending determination by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving parties sought substantial or partial indemnity costs, arguing they were entirely successful and had proceeded on an expedited timeline at the insistence of the responding parties.

The responding parties argued the amounts claimed exceeded reasonable expectations and that substantial indemnity costs were inappropriate because the motion concerned jurisdiction and did not determine substantive rights.

Applying the principles under s.131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that successful parties are generally entitled to costs but that the amount must be fair and reasonable.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to each group of moving parties.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal or a stay of a wrongful dismissal and breach of contract action.

The dispute arose from an employment contract containing a sole employer clause and a forum selection clause requiring disputes to be resolved exclusively in Mexico.

The court found that although Ontario technically had jurisdiction, the employment contract’s choice of forum clause and the existence of ongoing proceedings before Mexican labour authorities justified declining to exercise that jurisdiction.

Applying the principles governing enforcement of forum selection clauses, the court held the plaintiff failed to demonstrate strong cause to depart from the agreed forum.

The Ontario action was stayed pending the outcome of the Mexican proceedings.

Unionized masonry contractors commenced a civil action alleging that employer associations and construction unions conspired to prevent them from using independent operator payment arrangements with bricklayers through amendments to provincial collective agreements.

The plaintiffs sought declarations that the collective agreements and memorandum of agreement were unlawful, injunctive relief, and damages for economic torts.

The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action on the basis that the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Applying the framework from Weber v. Ontario Hydro, the court held that the essential character of the dispute concerned labour relations issues including the validity and scope of collective agreements and the relationship between employers and unionized workers.

Because those matters fall within the OLRB’s exclusive jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act, the court stayed the action and declined to consider the requested injunctive relief.