Elisha C. Jamieson

The appellants sought to certify a class action claiming unpaid overtime on behalf of Investment Advisors and Associate Investment Advisors employed by the respondents.

The motion judge and Divisional Court dismissed the certification motion, finding that eligibility for overtime pay could not be determined as a common issue because it required an individual assessment of each employee's duties, autonomy, and managerial responsibilities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no material misapprehension of evidence and that the lower courts correctly applied the legal principles governing the common issue requirement under s. 5(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The applicant sought judicial review of a tribunal decision denying accreditation as an accredited farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The tribunal had concluded the applicant lacked standing because it did not actively represent farmers in Ontario and failed certain accreditation criteria under O. Reg. 723/93.

The court held the tribunal’s interpretation of the standing provision in s. 4(1) of the Act was unreasonable and improperly introduced additional criteria not prescribed in the legislation or regulation.

The tribunal’s focus on the applicant’s affiliation with a national organization and organizational structure was inconsistent with the statutory scheme.

The court concluded the applicant met the prescribed criteria and that the tribunal had no discretion to deny accreditation once those criteria were satisfied.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision reinstating a probationary employee.

The employee had been terminated for performance issues shortly after disclosing a struggle with depression.

The Board found the termination was arbitrary and discriminatory.

The Divisional Court quashed the Board's decision, holding that the employer had repeatedly communicated performance expectations and the termination was based on legitimate performance concerns, making the Board's findings of arbitrariness and discrimination unreasonable.

The appellants appealed a decision denying certification of a proposed class proceeding against CIBC and CIBC World Markets for alleged misclassification of employees making them ineligible for overtime.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that despite an amended class definition, the issue of eligibility for overtime for Investment Advisors and Associate Investment Advisors required individual, case-by-case determinations regarding their managerial or supervisory functions.

The appellants failed to establish a basis in fact that the job functions were sufficiently similar to be resolved as a common issue.

At the commencement of the hearing for an application alleging discrimination based on family status, the intervenor union requested to withdraw on consent.

The Tribunal granted the request and removed the union from the style of cause.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that reinstated a teacher who had been dismissed for alleged misconduct involving students.

The board argued the arbitrator applied an incorrectly high standard of proof, drew an unreasonable adverse inference, and improperly excluded similar fact evidence.

The Divisional Court majority dismissed the application, finding that although the arbitrator misstated the law by referencing an intermediate standard of proof, a reading of the award as a whole demonstrated he actually applied the correct civil standard of a balance of probabilities.

The majority also found the arbitrator's treatment of the adverse inference and similar fact evidence was reasonable.

The dissenting judge would have allowed the application, concluding the arbitrator's misstatement of the standard of proof was a fatal error of law.

The applicant college sought judicial review of an arbitration award that allowed two individual grievances, finding that two sessional employees had worked enough 'full months' to qualify for a rollover to probationary regular employees.

The Divisional Court found the arbitration board's reasons to be unintelligible and incomprehensible, failing the minimum requirements for deference.

The court quashed the award regarding the individual grievances and remitted them to a newly constituted Board of Arbitration.

The employer applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's award that ordered it to repay funds to an employee.

The employee, a station collector, had erroneously credited customers' debit cards instead of debiting them, resulting in a shortage.

The arbitrator found the employee responsible for the shortage under the collective agreement but held the employer could not recover the funds because it failed to mitigate its loss.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed the award, finding the arbitrator's imposition of a duty to mitigate unreasonable in the context of a contractual debt and the collective agreement's clear language.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, disability, age, and reprisal against her employer and a co-worker.

The allegations focused on several incidents between May 2009 and January 2010, including the employer's requirement that she submit short-term disability forms within 30 days, a workplace audit, an offer of modified work cleaning surfaces, and the denial of vacation selection by seniority upon her return.

The Tribunal found that the employer provided credible, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions, which followed established corporate policies.

The Tribunal concluded there was no breach of the Human Rights Code and dismissed the application in its entirety.

The respondents requested an order dismissing the human rights application, arguing the Tribunal lost jurisdiction when the original applicant died and that the Trustee Act does not permit an estate to carry a human rights application.

The respondents alternatively requested deferral pending a concurrent civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding that human rights claims are statutory, not common law actions, and do not abate upon death.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application because the civil action sought only pay in lieu of notice and did not allege human rights violations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.

Following the applicant's death, the respondents requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal deferred this issue pending confirmation of the estate representative.

The Tribunal also considered whether the application was barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code due to an ongoing wrongful dismissal civil action.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) did not apply because the civil action did not allege or seek remedies for a breach of the Code.

The appellant appealed an order finding that the employer's Fairness Appeal Program did not apply to his termination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that the program expressly excludes terminations without cause.

The court held that an employer's underlying concerns regarding performance do not convert a termination without cause into a termination for cause when the employer elects to provide notice or payment in lieu thereof.

No evidence of employer bad faith was found.