George Avraam

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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 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.

Following a direction from the Court of Appeal to reconsider liability for malicious prosecution, the court determined whether a municipality could be liable for initiating criminal proceedings against a former employee.

The court applied the four‑part test from Nelles v. Ontario and examined whether the municipality initiated the prosecution, lacked reasonable and probable grounds, acted with malice, and whether the proceedings terminated in favour of the plaintiff.

The court found the municipality withheld exculpatory information from police regarding missing municipal files and prior internal investigations, thereby undermining the independence of the police investigation and becoming the proximate cause of charges that resulted in an acquittal.

The court concluded the prosecution was pursued to justify the employee’s dismissal and shield the municipality from civil liability.

Liability for malicious prosecution was established, but damages were fixed at a nominal amount pursuant to agreement of counsel.