Gil Itzchak Fischler

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer incorrectly calculated the grievor's merit date following a salary progression freeze.

The employer raised preliminary objections based on delay, failure to disclose a prima facie breach, and res judicata.

The arbitrator issued a procedural order setting a timeline for the exchange of particulars and evidence regarding the delay issue ahead of the scheduled hearing on the preliminary objections.

The applicant, Marion Breukelman, sought to consolidate two civil proceedings (a civil action and an employment action) into her ongoing family law application.

The court granted the motion for consolidation, finding that the proceedings shared common questions of fact and law, particularly regarding the beneficial ownership of shares in a family business (R. Avis Surveying Inc.).

The court emphasized that consolidation would promote judicial efficiency, save legal expenses for the parties, and, most importantly, avoid the risk of inconsistent judgments across the related proceedings.

Despite concerns raised by the respondent and other parties about inconvenience, the court determined that the balance of convenience favoured consolidation, noting that the Family Law Rules provide tools for efficient case management.

The appellant employee appealed the dismissal of his Small Claims Court action for wrongful dismissal.

The employee had refused to perform temporary duties in the shipping department unless he was paid the higher wage rate associated with that position.

The employer treated this as a resignation or, alternatively, just cause for termination due to insubordination.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the employer's request was reasonable and lawful based on company policy and past practice, and that the employee's repeated refusals constituted a repudiation of an essential condition of his employment contract.

The appeal was dismissed.

Ace Marmon appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his wrongful dismissal action against SanMar Canada.

Marmon claimed he was fired without cause, while SanMar asserted he resigned or was terminated for insubordination after refusing temporary shipping duties at his regular pay rate.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or law by the Deputy Judge.

The court upheld the finding that Marmon's refusal constituted repudiation of an essential employment condition and insubordination, justifying dismissal.

The applicant, a former restaurant employee, alleged that the owner subjected her to a poisoned work environment through racial and sexual comments and conduct.

The Tribunal found that the owner made racially discriminatory comments about a former Black employee, implemented a Valentine's Day promotion that invited customers to kiss staff, asked the applicant an inappropriate sexual question, and sent a sexualized text message to her boyfriend.

The Tribunal concluded that these actions created a poisoned work environment contrary to section 5(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was awarded $3,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and the respondent was ordered to complete human rights training and implement a human rights policy.

The claim for lost wages was dismissed as the applicant would have quit for non-Code related reasons.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing an action alleging oppression under s. 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act arising from a corporation’s failure to satisfy a Small Claims Court judgment.

The plaintiff claimed the defendant, alleged to be a director, failed to ensure that the corporation maintained a reserve to pay its debt following corporate restructuring and insolvency.

The court held that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial because the evidence demonstrated the defendant was merely an employee under the control of another corporation and was not the controlling mind of the debtor company.

Even assuming he was a director, there was no evidence he participated in the alleged oppressive conduct.

Summary judgment dismissing the claim against the moving defendant was granted.

The appellant sued her father for damages arising from childhood sexual abuse.

The father had previously been convicted of criminal offences based on the same conduct.

At the civil trial, the father adduced evidence from his two sons, who claimed they had committed the abuse, not him.

The trial judge accepted this evidence and dismissed the action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in permitting the father to relitigate the underlying facts of his criminal conviction.

The evidence of the sons was not 'fresh evidence' as it was known prior to the criminal trial, and allowing the relitigation constituted an abuse of process.