Gary Shortliffe

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 21.01 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking determination of questions of law and dismissal of a statement of claim arising from an employment dispute.

The plaintiff had previously pursued overtime and public holiday pay through an Employment Standards Act complaint and received compensation through a Ministry of Labour order.

The court held that s. 97(1) and (3) of the Employment Standards Act barred a civil proceeding relating to the same employment matters.

The court further held that alleged defamatory statements made to an Employment Standards officer during the ESA investigation were protected by absolute privilege because they occurred in a quasi‑judicial proceeding.

The employment and defamation claims were therefore legally unsustainable.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim, which alleged unpaid overtime and defamation.

The court found that the employment-related claims were barred by sections 97(1) and (3) of the Employment Standards Act, as the plaintiff had already pursued and resolved these claims through the Ministry of Labour.

Furthermore, the defamation claim was barred by absolute privilege, as the alleged defamatory statements were made during the course of the quasi-judicial Employment Standards Act proceeding.

The court ruled that both legal claims must fail and awarded costs to the defendants.