Edmund J. Stevens

The appellant sought a stay of an order lifting the stay of enforcement of a Michigan judgment in Ontario, pending his appeal.

The respondent opposed the stay and brought a motion for security for costs of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the appellant had no standing as he had no interest in the property against which enforcement was sought.

The Court granted the motion for security for costs, finding the appeal frivolous and vexatious and that the appellant had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The Board held a hearing to determine the compensation owed to the complainant following a finding that she was unlawfully discharged for a work refusal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The employer argued that compensation should be reduced due to the complainant's failure to mitigate damages, her delay in filing the complaint, and her receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

The Board found that the complainant made reasonable efforts to mitigate her damages and declined to deduct unemployment insurance benefits from the award.

However, the Board reduced the compensation period by 16 weeks due to an unexplained delay in filing the complaint.

The employer was ordered to pay $10,242.18 in compensation and interest.

The complainant was discharged from her employment at a car dealership shortly after refusing to perform a paint inventory due to noxious fumes.

The employer claimed the discharge was solely due to her poor performance, which had been a concern for months.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the complainant had exercised her right to refuse unsafe work under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Applying the reverse onus, the Board concluded the employer failed to prove that the discharge was entirely unrelated to the work refusal, noting the suspicious timing and the employer's trivialization of her health concerns.

The complaint was allowed.