George Avraam

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim for the value of Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) that would have vested during the common law notice period following his wrongful dismissal.

The respondents cross-appealed the finding that the termination provisions of the employment agreement were void for contravening the Employment Standards Act 2000 (ESA).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the cross-appeal, upholding the finding that the termination clause violated the ESA.

The Court allowed the appeal regarding the RSUs, finding that the RSU Agreements contravened the ESA by purporting to alter a term or condition of employment during the statutory notice period.

The appellant was awarded damages for the RSUs that would have vested during the 10-month notice period.

The appeal regarding punitive damages was dismissed.

The applicant, a school board trustee, brought an application for judicial review of an in-camera decision of the respondent school board.

At the hearing, the respondent raised a preliminary issue that the application was premature because the in-camera decision had not been brought to a public vote as required by the Education Act.

The parties reached an agreement that no decision was made and the matter would not be put to a public vote, leaving only the issue of costs.

The Divisional Court awarded the applicant $10,000 in costs, finding that the respondent failed to communicate its intention not to proceed with a public vote until the hearing, causing the applicant to unnecessarily incur costs.

Five organizations brought motions for leave to intervene in an appeal concerning the constitutionality of provincial legislation that required the removal of bicycle lanes in Toronto.

The underlying judgment found the legislation violated section 7 of the Charter.

The motion judge granted leave to all five proposed interveners, but limited the scope of their interventions to specific issues such as the positive/negative rights dichotomy, the interpretation of recent section 7 jurisprudence, and the application of equality and child-interest principles to the gross disproportionality analysis.

The interveners were restricted to 10-page factums and brief oral submissions.

The applicant, a tenured university professor, sought judicial review of a decision by the university's Board of Governors to remove him from his position for adequate cause.

The removal followed findings that he engaged in a sexual relationship with a vulnerable student, hired another student with whom he had a sexual relationship without disclosing the conflict of interest, and used a dating website to flirt with an undergraduate student.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the hearing was procedurally fair and the decision to remove the applicant was reasonable, intelligible, and justified given the serious breach of trust and abuse of power.

The applicant, a school board trustee, sought judicial review of a school board decision finding she breached the Trustee Code of Conduct and imposing sanctions.

The Divisional Court found the application was not moot despite the sanctions being reduced to time served, as the finding of misconduct remained on her record.

The court quashed the decision, finding the board breached procedural fairness by failing to provide the applicant and the trustees with the investigator's report and by failing to commence the inquiry within the required six-month timeline.

The court also found the decision blatantly unreasonable, as the investigator's findings did not support the conclusion that the applicant disclosed confidential information.

Two organizations, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce (OCC) and the Canadian Association of Counsel to Employers (CACE), brought motions for leave to intervene in an appeal concerning the enforceability of 'without cause' and 'with cause' termination provisions in an employment contract.

The respondent employee opposed the motions, arguing the appeal was a private dispute and intervention would cause duplication and imbalance.

The motion judge found the appeal raised broader public policy issues regarding employment standards legislation.

To avoid the appearance of unfairness and duplication, the court granted leave to intervene to the OCC but dismissed CACE's motion.

The Council of Ontario Universities brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The underlying decision ordered the applicant university to implement a pilot project for admitting students with disabilities based on prior learning and assessment recognition rather than purely grades.

The court granted the motion, finding that the Council's sector-wide perspective on university autonomy and human rights compliance would usefully contribute to the determination of the application without causing injustice to the parties.

The applicant, a nursing student, sought judicial review of a university tribunal's decision upholding her failing grade in a clinical placement and her subsequent removal from the nursing program.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable, illegal, and procedurally unfair, and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the exceptions for judicial review.

Applying the reasonableness standard, the court found the tribunal's decision was justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The court also held that the applicant was afforded a high level of procedural fairness throughout the tribunal process.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant sought to enforce an alleged agreement, contained in an email exchange, for the acquisition of shares in a family corporation and a declaration that the respondent had consented to the sale of shares owned by one of her brothers.

The motion judge found no binding agreement, determining that essential terms regarding the transaction's structure, method of payment, and dividend payments were not settled.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, affirming that the structure and method of payment, which directly impacted the net-of-tax amount, and the precise terms of dividend payments were essential terms that had not been agreed upon.

The applicants, four university students, sought judicial review of the respondent university's decision to deny their requests for religious exemptions from its mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The students argued the university's decisions were unreasonable and breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court held that while it had jurisdiction to review the decisions, the core issue was a claim of discrimination based on creed, which should be adjudicated by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The court also found that the university met the rudimentary duty of procedural fairness owed to the students given the context of the pandemic and the institutional constraints.

The application was dismissed.

The self-represented plaintiff's action was previously dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 with leave to amend.

After the plaintiff filed a Fresh Amended Statement of Claim, the defendants requested another Rule 2.1.01 review.

The court issued a notice that it was considering dismissing the action and required written submissions.

The plaintiff requested a medical accommodation to provide oral submissions instead, citing autism and difficulty writing.

Although the medical evidence was deficient, the court exercised its discretion under Rule 2.1.01(3) to allow the accommodation, finding no prejudice to the defendants.

The plaintiff was permitted to provide a 15-minute oral response.

The defendant university sought to dismiss the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found the claim to be an unintelligible, rambling discourse that failed to disclose a valid cause of action.

However, noting that attached documents suggested a potential core complaint regarding the university's failure to follow a collective agreement when declaring the plaintiff persona non grata, the court dismissed the claim without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff 20 days to deliver an amended statement of claim complying with the Rules.

The respondent was employed by the appellant, a commercial real estate company, from 2001-2004 and again from 2009-2017, serving as Managing Director.

Upon termination without cause on January 19, 2017, the respondent received statutory minimums under the Employment Standards Act but no bonus compensation.

The respondent sued for wrongful dismissal, claiming damages for reasonable notice, benefits during the notice period, and lost bonus compensation.

The motion judge found the termination clause unenforceable as it contracted out of employment standards without providing greater benefits.

The Court of Appeal upheld this finding and confirmed the respondent's entitlement to bonus damages for both the period worked and the notice period, as well as benefits compensation.

Following a motion by the defendant to stay the action for lack of jurisdiction and for summary judgment, the court stayed the action to allow a labour arbitrator to determine jurisdiction and dismissed the summary judgment motion.

The court then received written submissions on costs.

Despite the defendant's partial success on the jurisdiction issue, the court awarded costs to the plaintiff due to the defendant's unreasonable delay in bringing the motions.

The plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs for the jurisdiction motion and substantial indemnity costs for the summary judgment motion, totaling $270,162.08.

The defendant, General Dynamics Land Systems - Canada, brought a motion seeking dismissal of the plaintiff's claim, primarily arguing that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter, which it contended was exclusively vested in a labour arbitrator under a collective agreement and the Labour Relations Act.

The plaintiff, Helga Louise Brillon, opposed the motion, arguing that the defendant had attorned to the court's jurisdiction through delay and that the dispute's essential character concerned wrongful interference with long-term disability benefits, not arbitrable employment issues.

The court, distinguishing between Rule 17.06 and Rule 21.01(3)(a) motions, found that delay in bringing a subject matter jurisdiction challenge does not vest jurisdiction in the court but may affect costs.

Applying the "exclusive jurisdiction model" from Weber v. Ontario Hydro, the court determined that the essential character of the dispute was not clearly non-arbitrable.

Consequently, the court allowed the motion in part, staying the action and referring the matter to a labour arbitrator to determine the issue of jurisdiction, and dismissed the alternative request for summary judgment.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment award of $310,040.88 in damages to its former employee, representing 19 months' pay in lieu of notice plus prejudgment interest and costs.

The motion judge had found the termination clause in the employment agreement unenforceable due to lack of consideration.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the employer's offer of employment to the employee upon the sale of the business constituted valid consideration for the termination clause.

The court distinguished the case from precedents involving variations to a single employment relationship, emphasizing that a new contract with a new employer was formed upon the business sale.

The court remitted the action to trial to address remaining issues regarding ESA compliance and other arguments not previously decided.

Several tenured professors at McMaster University sought judicial review of a university tribunal decision that found them liable for workplace harassment and contributing to a poisoned work environment.

The tribunal had imposed severe penalties, including three-year unpaid suspensions for three professors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applicants' procedural fairness and jurisdictional arguments, finding they had consented to the tribunal's procedures and failed to raise timely objections.

However, the Court found the lengthy unpaid suspensions were disproportionate and unreasonable, effectively destroying the employment relationship.

The Court reduced the three-year suspensions to one year, reduced a one-year suspension to one academic term, and ordered compensation in lieu of reinstatement for the affected professors.

The appellant employee accepted an offer of employment that did not contain a termination provision.

Nine months later, he signed an employment agreement limiting his termination entitlements to the minimums under the Employment Standards Act.

After being terminated without cause seven years later, he sued for wrongful dismissal and unpaid commissions.

The Court of Appeal held that the termination provision in the subsequent employment agreement was unenforceable for lack of fresh consideration, entitling the appellant to common law reasonable notice.

However, the Court upheld the trial judge's dismissal of the appellant's claims for commissions on a major account finalized after his termination, finding no error in the interpretation of the commission plan or the rejection of his unjust enrichment claim.

The corporate respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding to correct its business name and remove two of its employees as individual respondents.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal granted the unopposed request, removing the individual employees as respondents and correcting the corporate respondent's legal name.

The plaintiff employee moved to Ottawa for family reasons and sought to telecommute to his Toronto-based job.

The employer agreed only on the condition that the plaintiff sign a new fixed-term employment contract.

When the contract was not renewed, the plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal, arguing the new contract was void for lack of consideration, duress, lack of agreement, and breach of the Employment Standards Act.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment and the action, finding the contract was validly formed with consideration and without duress.

While an early termination clause violated the ESA, it was severable, and the fixed-term provision remained valid.