Ernest David Coetzee

The complainant was dismissed for cause and filed a complaint with the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was filed outside the mandatory 14-day window following the expiry of the 30-day dispute resolution period under Ontario Regulation 378/07.

The complainant argued that 'days' should be interpreted as business days, excluding weekends and holidays, in accordance with the Board's Rules.

The Board held that the computation of time provisions in the Legislation Act, 2006 apply to the Regulation, meaning 'days' refers to calendar days.

As the complaint was filed outside the mandatory time limit, the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear it.

The complaint was dismissed.

The appellant, a long-term employee who suddenly became deaf, was subjected to a campaign of abuse by her employer designed to force her resignation.

She was ultimately fired for a frivolous reason.

The employer was noted in default in her wrongful dismissal action.

On appeal from the damages assessment, the Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by awarding damages that were too low across several categories, including Human Rights Code violations, intentional infliction of mental distress, aggravated damages, and punitive damages.

The total damages were increased to $246,049.92, the maximum allowable under the unamended statement of claim.

The plaintiff sought default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action after the defendant was noted in default and unsuccessful in attempts to set aside that default.

The court accepted the uncontested evidence that the employer failed to accommodate the employee’s deafness and subjected the employee to humiliating treatment culminating in termination.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded 24 months’ pay in lieu of notice and damages for loss of benefits.

The court also awarded damages for discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and punitive damages due to the employer’s egregious conduct and failure to accommodate disability.

Total damages exceeded $109,000 plus interest and costs.

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.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and termination.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release after receiving legal advice, in exchange for a salary and benefits continuance.

The Tribunal found that the applicant made an informed choice to sign the release, which clearly encompassed claims under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal concluded that proceeding with the application would be an abuse of process and dismissed it.

An employee sought a judicial interpretation of an employment contract following termination without cause, claiming additional severance based on commissions.

The dispute concerned whether the calculation of average annual commissions for termination pay should account for company losses incurred in the final fiscal quarters before termination.

The court held that the contract referred to "earned commissions" tied to net profits and losses rather than commissions actually paid.

Interpreting the contract in accordance with commercial reasonableness, the court concluded that outstanding company losses must be included when calculating average commissions for termination pay.

The employer had already paid the correct amount and owed no further compensation.

The appellants appealed a partial summary judgment ordering the return of a $250,000 deposit on a failed commercial lease for a sports dome facility.

The respondents had terminated the lease because the facility was not completed by the required date and lacked heat, water, and fire safety access.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's interpretation of the termination clause, finding no ambiguity that would require a trial.

The Court also affirmed that partial summary judgment was appropriate under Rule 20 to resolve the discrete issue of the deposit return, even if it effectively determined liability for the main action and counterclaim.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability following his termination.

He subsequently commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal, which included a claim for damages under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal application be dismissed pursuant to section 34(11) of the Code.

The Tribunal found that the application was barred because the applicant had commenced a civil proceeding seeking compensation for the alleged human rights infringement, and that proceeding had not been withdrawn prior to making the application to the Tribunal.

The Canadian Health Care Workers (CHCW) filed a certification application to displace the incumbent union, SEIU, for service employees at Parkwood Hospital and McCormick Home.

Shortly after, SEIU filed an application under the newly enacted Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act (Bill 136), arguing that an ongoing restructuring transferring Parkwood to St. Joseph's Health Centre barred the certification application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that Bill 136 did not automatically bar the certification application and declined to exercise its discretion to apply Bill 136 retroactively to halt the proceeding.

The Board directed that the representation ballots be counted, treating the employees at the two facilities as separate voting constituencies.

The applicant union filed displacement applications for certification and section 96 unfair labour practice complaints against the employer and the incumbent union.

At the outset of the hearing, the incumbent union and the employer brought motions to dismiss the applications.

The Board granted the motions, finding that the allegations of improper conduct during the representation vote campaign, even if true, would not support a finding of a breach of the Act or undermine the vote results.

The Board also noted the applicant failed to raise its concerns prior to the counting of the ballots.

The applications and complaints were dismissed.