Elisha Jamieson

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 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.