Dragomir Stephen Jovanovic

Following a successful appeal regarding the apportionment of damages, the court determined the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.

The third parties were ordered to pay partial indemnity costs of $50,000 to the appellants and $75,000 to the respondents.

The appellants were ordered to pay $30,000 in partial indemnity costs to the respondents, as the respondents were required to address all issues initially raised by the appellants.

The appellants, an engineering firm and its principal, appealed a trial judgment apportioning liability for damages between them and their insurers.

The trial judge found the appellants liable in negligence and breach of contract for errors and delays in engineering drawings for a construction project.

The trial judge apportioned 45% of the damages to the appellants and 55% to the insurers, based on an exclusion clause for delay.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that all delays were caused by the appellants' negligence in having to correct errors, which was covered under the policy.

The insurers' cross-appeal regarding the assessment of damages and the date used for foreign currency conversion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, a precast concrete manufacturer and its sales agent, sued an engineering company and its principal for breach of contract and negligence arising from delayed and error-filled engineering drawings for a parking garage project.

The court found the defendants liable in both contract and tort for pure economic loss.

The court admitted subcontractor invoices as business records under the principled approach to hearsay to prove damages.

The defendants' third-party claim against their insurers was partially allowed, with the court allocating damages between covered errors and excluded delays.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

The respondent raised a timeliness issue, arguing that many incidents occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations based on ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin as out of time, finding no reasonable explanation for the delay.

However, the Tribunal found that the allegations related to disability constituted a series of incidents under s. 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code, culminating in the applicant's termination, and were therefore timely.

The applicant filed human rights applications against his employer and union, alleging discrimination based on colour, race, place of origin, ethnic origin, and disability.

The allegations centered on his return to work following an injury and a subsequent payroll dispute.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications at a Case Resolution Conference, finding no evidence that the respondents' actions regarding the return to work or the payroll dispute were connected to any prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The appellant, a sales representative, breached its fiduciary duty to the respondent manufacturer by failing to disclose an equity interest in a customer.

The respondent terminated the agreement upon discovering the breach two years later.

The trial judge declared that the respondent owed no further commissions to the appellant, finding that the respondent would have terminated the agreement earlier had it known of the breach.

The Court of Appeal upheld this equitable remedy, preventing the appellant from profiting from its non-disclosure.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding costs, finding that the appellant's conduct, while a serious breach, was not reprehensible enough to justify costs on a solicitor and client scale.

During proceedings for a first contract arbitration and a termination of bargaining rights, the responding employer and objecting employees raised a constitutional objection, arguing that the employer's taxi dispatch service fell under federal jurisdiction due to its cross-border travel into Detroit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed the constitutional facts, noting that cross-border trips represented less than 0.5% of the employer's total volume and were unscheduled and on-demand.

Applying the test of whether the extra-provincial work was 'regular and continuous', the Board concluded that the extra-provincial travel was occasional and casual.

Therefore, the employer's labour relations fall within provincial jurisdiction, and the Board has jurisdiction to hear the applications.

In an application for decertification, a representation vote was held resulting in a tie, with five segregated ballots.

The Board convened a hearing to determine the eligibility of the five individuals who cast the segregated ballots.

The parties agreed one ballot should be destroyed.

The Board held that the employer could not resile from its prior representation that two employees were outside the bargaining unit, and their ballots were destroyed.

The Board found the remaining two employees were eligible to vote and directed their ballots be counted, rejecting the union's argument that the employer was estopped by its conduct outside the Board proceedings.

The applicant union sought certification for crews on commercial fishing boats operating on Lake Erie.

The respondent boat owners raised preliminary objections, arguing that fishing crews are excluded from the Ontario Labour Relations Act as persons employed in 'hunting or trapping' under section 2(b), and alternatively, that labour relations in the fishing industry fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to the 'Navigation and Shipping' or 'Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries' powers of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed both objections.

The Board held that fishing is distinct from hunting and trapping, and that the intra-provincial commercial fishing operations are not integral to the federal powers over navigation or the preservation of fisheries as a natural resource.

Consequently, the Board asserted jurisdiction to hear the certification applications.

The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging he was discharged for union activity.

The employer argued the complaint was barred because the complainant had signed a full and final release in exchange for two weeks' pay, negotiated with the assistance of an Employment Standards Officer.

The Board found that the complainant understood he was signing a release of all claims against the employer and that the employer had not taken advantage of its superior bargaining position.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 89(4) of the Labour Relations Act to decline to hear the complaint, and dismissed it.

Several employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of Locals 175 and 633 of the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union following the sale of two grocery stores by Gordons Markets to new independent owners.

The union argued the termination applications were untimely because it had given notice to bargain to the successor employers under section 63(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the union's letters to the new owners merely informed them of the union's successor rights and requested a meeting to discuss the application of the existing collective agreements, but did not constitute clear and unequivocal notice of a desire to bargain a new or modified collective agreement.

Consequently, the letters did not trigger the statutory bar to termination applications.

The union brought an application under section 63 and a complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act against two banks and their privately appointed receivers following the insolvency of Windsor Packing Company Limited.

The union argued that the receivers were successor employers and were liable for unpaid union dues and other collective agreement obligations.

The Board held that the private appointment of a receiver-manager does not constitute a sale or transfer of a business under section 63.

However, the Board found that the receiver, acting as an agent of the insolvent company, violated section 64 by failing to deduct and remit union dues and ignoring the collective agreement while employing bargaining unit members to wind down operations.

The receiver was ordered to pay the union dues for the period it acted as the employer.

The applicant union applied for certification and a pre-hearing representation vote was held, resulting in a majority for the union.

A group of objecting employees sought a new vote, alleging that union supporters excluded them from organizational meetings and that a union representative was improperly present near the polling area during the vote.

The Board held that organizers are not required to invite all employees to organizational meetings.

The Board also found that the union representative's presence near the polling area did not destroy the secrecy of the ballot or influence the vote.

The objections were dismissed and a certificate was issued to the applicant.