Greg McGinnis

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision that denied his claim for a bonus payment following his termination.

The motion judge had found that the appellant had no contractual entitlement to a bonus, as the bonus plan was purely discretionary and subjective.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings, concluding that the employment offer only provided eligibility to participate in the bonus plan, not an entitlement.

The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's alternative calculation of the bonus quantum or the costs award.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants, Workplace Health & Cost Solutions (WHCS) and The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB), brought motions to strike the plaintiff, Dr. Brenda Steinnagel's, statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action or for being scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.

The plaintiff alleged wrongful dismissal, economic torts, conspiracy, and fraudulent conduct, claiming the defendants orchestrated her termination for refusing to alter medical opinions to deny claimant benefits.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the statement of claim, read generously, sufficiently pleaded the causes of action, including unlawful interference with economic relations, inducing breach of contract, and unlawful act conspiracy.

The court held it was not plain and obvious that the action could not succeed and that allegations of fraudulent conduct were relevant to the context of dismissal and potential punitive damages.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability requested an order for the production of documents and particulars relating to the applicant's efforts to mitigate his losses following termination.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce documents regarding his job search efforts, income from all sources, and subsequent employment, finding them arguably relevant to the claim for lost income.

However, the Tribunal declined to order the production of the applicant's disability insurance file, citing privacy concerns regarding personal medical information.

The applicant sought judicial review of Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions certifying the respondent union as the exclusive bargaining agent for its electricians.

The applicant challenged the Board's use of a 'bright line' test to determine the bargaining unit based on employees working on a Saturday filing date, the Board's finding that a union organizer's conduct did not violate s. 76 of the Labour Relations Act, and the wording of the ballot question.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decisions reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

This was a standalone costs endorsement following a wrongful dismissal action in which the plaintiff achieved only limited monetary success.

The court held that the plaintiff was nevertheless the successful party, but reduced the costs recovery significantly because the defendant had substantial success on the main issues of inducement and bonus entitlement.

The court also held that the defendant's time-limited pre-litigation settlement offer had only limited relevance because it expired before litigation and was not maintained in proper Rule 49 form.

Costs were fixed at $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST in favour of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

He claimed he was induced to leave his previous employment and sought 12 months' notice, along with compensation for a discretionary bonus.

The court found no inducement, as the plaintiff actively sought the position and negotiated his terms.

The court awarded 4.5 months' reasonable notice, considering his age, position, short tenure, and the time of year he was terminated.

The claim for bonus damages was dismissed because the bonus plan was purely discretionary and required active employment at year-end.

The plaintiff was also awarded mitigation expenses and health benefits, subject to deductions for earnings from his new employment.

The applicant, who had medical restrictions due to a neck injury and fibromyalgia, requested accommodation to work straight day shifts rather than rotating shifts.

The respondent employer refused, insisting she work rotating shifts like other employees, despite medical notes stating shift work aggravated her symptoms.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found the respondent discriminated against the applicant by failing to accommodate her disability.

The Tribunal awarded $7,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, compensation for lost disability benefits, and ordered systemic remedies including human rights training and the development of an internal human rights policy.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a preliminary decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board finding that the union's certification application fell within provincial jurisdiction.

The respondent union argued the application was premature because the employer had other non-constitutional grounds for opposing certification that had not yet been decided.

The Divisional Court agreed, holding that absent exceptional circumstances, proceedings before administrative tribunals should not be fragmented.

Finding no exceptional circumstances, the court quashed the application as premature.

The plaintiff, a senior manager at an accounting firm, was terminated for cause following allegations of improper expense claims.

The court found that while the plaintiff had previously been reprimanded for defacing receipts, his subsequent conduct did not involve concealment and did not justify termination without notice.

The court awarded 10 months' reasonable notice and outstanding bonuses.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for overtime pay under the Employment Standards Act, finding that his role was supervisory and managerial in character, thus exempting him from overtime entitlements.

The appellant employer appealed a trial decision finding it wrongfully dismissed the respondent, a 17-year employee who failed to lock-out a machine and delayed reporting the safety violation.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the appellant that the trial judge erred in relying on a comparator incident involving another employee whose violation was unknown to management at the time.

However, the Court upheld the trial judge's conclusion that dismissal without notice was a disproportionate response given the respondent's long, almost unblemished record and the fact that his mistake did not put others at risk.

The applicant in a disability discrimination case filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking the production of five documents from the respondents.

The respondents claimed they did not possess two of the documents and ignored the other three requests.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce the remaining three documents (an employment application, a reference letter, and a cover letter) if they were in their possession, but made no order regarding the documents the respondents stated they did not have.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability (alcoholism) after his employment was terminated for intoxicated and inappropriate conduct at a company holiday party.

The applicant claimed he had previously disclosed his alcoholism to a human resources representative when requesting benefit coverage for a prescription medication.

The respondent denied knowledge of the disability, asserting the representative believed the medication was for smoking cessation.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he had informed the employer of his alcoholism.

Because the employer did not know and could not reasonably have known of the disability, the duty to accommodate was not triggered, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her on the basis of race and colour by subjecting her to harassment and intimidation while shopping at their store, including using the public announcement system to track her movements.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the applicant's allegations highly improbable and unsupported by evidence, concluding there was no reasonable prospect she could prove a Code violation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a tool and die maker with bilateral hand restrictions from work-related injuries, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

He claimed the employer failed to accommodate him, denied him overtime, subjected him to harassment by management and coworkers, and terminated his employment because of his disability.

The Tribunal found that the employer had accommodated the applicant by providing a bundle of tasks within his medical restrictions.

The Tribunal also found that the lack of overtime was due to the nature of his modified duties, the alleged comments did not amount to harassment, and the termination was part of a mass layoff resulting from a plant closure, not based on his disability.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that he was subjected to differential treatment and harassment in the course of his employment on the basis of his place of origin, ethnic origin, and ancestry, and that his employment was terminated as a reprisal for filing a human rights complaint.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's testimony lacked credibility and that there was no evidence to support his allegations of discrimination or harassment.

The Tribunal also found that the respondents were unaware of the human rights complaint until after the applicant's termination, which was due to performance issues.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant, a binder who suffered a work-related neck and shoulder injury, alleged that her employer failed to accommodate her disability.

The employer had provided modified work based on a WSIB ergonomic assessment, which the applicant attempted for a few days before stopping due to pain.

Although a subsequent WSIAT decision found the applicant was unable to perform the modified work, the Tribunal held that the employer had satisfied its duty to accommodate based on the information available to it at the relevant time, specifically the WSIB ergonomic report.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union filed a second application for certification immediately after being granted leave to withdraw its first application.

The responding party employer argued that the withdrawal decision was a nullity because it was made without seeking submissions, and requested that the Board impose a bar on the second application and award costs.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the employer's arguments, finding no breach of natural justice in the withdrawal process.

The Board declined to impose a bar, finding no abuse of process, and confirmed it lacked jurisdiction to award costs.

The second application was permitted to proceed.

The responding party employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the applicant union's unfair labour practice complaint due to delay.

The union alleged that four employees were terminated contrary to the Act, with the application filed between two and a half to eight months after the terminations.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to dismiss the application for delay, noting the serious nature of the allegations involving termination of employment and the lack of actual prejudice to the employer.

The union filed an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer padded the voters list with non-employees to defeat the certification application.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the unfair labour practice complaint for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the motion regarding the alleged breach of section 70, finding the pleadings raised a factual concern about the employer's motive.

However, the Board dismissed the allegations under sections 72 and 76 on a prima facie basis, as the pleadings did not demonstrate discrimination, threats, or intimidation.

The applicant union sought to adjourn the hearing of its certification application so it could be heard together with a newly filed section 96 unfair labour practice application concerning the termination of an employee.

The responding party employer opposed the adjournment, arguing the matters should be heard separately and it needed time to prepare.

The Board granted the adjournment, finding the applicant's explanation for the late filing reasonable and noting an overlap in evidence and witnesses between the pre-vote and post-vote events.

The Board directed the matters be scheduled together.