Hendrik Thomas Nieuwland

The appellants appealed an Engineer's Report regarding the Wignell Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the proposed drainage works would not ameliorate flooding on their properties, objected to the assessment of costs for bank restoration, and argued that the costs of previous incomplete engineering reports should not be assessed to the drain.

The Tribunal dismissed the MacNeils' appeals but adjusted the assessment schedule for the Bank Restoration Improvement Program.

The Tribunal allowed Whisky Run Golf Club's appeals in part, ordering that the engineering fees from previous incomplete reports be borne solely by the Municipality, that a mobile pump be used instead of a permanent pump, and that the cost of pumping be divided as 50% Outlet Liability and 50% Benefit to lands lower than the top of the gates.

The respondent municipality brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeals under s. 48(1) and s. 54(1) of the Drainage Act regarding the Wignell Municipal Drain.

The Tribunal found that the proposed improvements to the drain were being undertaken pursuant to s. 78(1) of the Act, which does not require a petition from landowners.

The Tribunal concluded that the s. 48(1) appeal did not meet the statutory criteria and dismissed both appeals without a hearing, granting the appellants participant status instead.

The appellant, a former head of the respondent union, was expelled from membership following an arbitration.

The respondent successfully applied to the Superior Court to enforce the arbitrator's awards.

The appellant attempted to appeal to the Divisional Court, which found the appeal frivolous and vexatious, and then appealed to the Court of Appeal seeking to set aside the awards, lay criminal charges, and claim $1 million in damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the proceeding under Rule 2.1.01(1) as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting the appellant sought relief the court could not grant and failed to meaningfully respond to the court's request for submissions.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to each of the two responding party groups.

The plaintiff, EllisDon Residential Inc., sought an injunction against Limen Group Const. (2019) Ltd. to resume work and against Defendant Unions for inducing breach of contract and interfering with economic relations.

The defendants argued the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) had exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute.

The court applied the Weber test, finding the essential character of the dispute related to labour relations and the interpretation of collective agreements, falling within the OLRB's exclusive jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the injunction motion and stayed the action, deferring to the OLRB.

The plaintiff construction manager sought an urgent hearing for an injunction to prevent the defendant union from allegedly intimidating a masonry contractor's employees into refusing to work.

The developer, Westbank, sought and was granted intervenor status.

The court declined to schedule the injunction motion on an urgent basis, finding that the delay in bringing the action was strategic and the alleged urgency was self-induced.

The parties were directed to schedule a regular motion date.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report for the Michener Municipal Drain, arguing that the proposed works should be paused until improvements to the downstream Wignell Drain were completed to prevent exacerbated flooding on his golf course.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the Wignell Drain currently lacks sufficient capacity to act as an outlet for the increased flow from the Michener Drain.

The Tribunal ordered that the Michener Drain works be paused until the Wignell Drain report and necessary outlet improvements are completed.

The appellant's request to reduce engineering costs was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as no prerequisite appeal had been made to the Court of Revision.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that barred their civil action against the respondents for constructive dismissal and assault.

The Tribunal had found that the underlying incident was a workplace accident, not an intentional assault, and that the civil claims were inextricably linked to the workplace injury, thus barred by section 28 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's factual findings were reasonable, the barring of the constructive dismissal claim was justified as a disguised tort claim, and there was no denial of procedural fairness.

This appeal addressed whether the trial judge erred in awarding eight months' damages for wrongful dismissal.

The appellant argued the trial judge improperly considered the respondent's prior service and the time it took him to find new employment.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's decision, finding the eight-month notice period reasonable and within an acceptable range, emphasizing deference to the trial judge's assessment and the holistic application of Bardal principles.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 25.11 to strike portions of the defendant's statement of defence in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff sought to strike allegations of performance issues, arguing they were irrelevant as the termination was without cause, and allegations of a settlement offer.

The court agreed, finding the performance issues were not tied to the bonus claim as argued by the defendant, and that pleading a settlement offer or a 'reasonable termination arrangement' was irrelevant and improper.

The motion was granted and the offending paragraphs were struck.

The applicants, a minority shareholder and its principal, sought an oppression remedy against the majority shareholder and his holding company in a family-owned transportation business.

The court found that the majority shareholder unfairly disregarded the applicants' interests by excluding the individual applicant from management, terminating his employment, paying excessive compensation to himself and his spouse, and improperly deducting expenses from the minority shareholder's dividends.

The court ordered the respondents to purchase the minority shares for $1,592,000 based on a February 2019 valuation and to pay $80,902.67 in compensation for unpaid dividends.

The plaintiff, Mohawk Ford Sales (1996) Limited (MF), brought a motion for leave to amend its Statement of Claim to plead new causes of action and related amendments concerning alleged misconduct by the defendant, Marc Jewiss.

The defendants argued the proposed amendments were statute-barred by the Limitations Act, asserting MF had discovered the claims earlier than alleged.

The court found that MF rebutted the presumption of actual knowledge at the time of the alleged conduct and provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in discovering the additional claims through internal reviews.

The court granted leave to amend the Statement of Claim, allowing the defendants to plead additional limitations defences.

An appeal of a wrongful dismissal judgment where the trial judge awarded an investment banker 18 months' reasonable notice damages following his dismissal without cause due to the closure of his employer's Mergers & Acquisitions division.

The principal issue on appeal concerned whether damages should include the deferred portions of the employee's bonus (60% of annual bonuses paid as notional shares that would vest over time).

The appellants also challenged the trial judge's awards for vacation pay, prejudgment interest, and costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision in all respects.

The respondents requested to add VP Protection Inc. and GDI Services (Canada) LP as respondents, and to remove Cushman & Wakefield Ltd. as a respondent in a human rights application alleging workplace harassment and discrimination.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test for adding respondents and found that both VP Protection and GDI could potentially be held liable for the actions of their employees during the relevant periods.

The Tribunal also found that Cushman & Wakefield Ltd. was a separate corporate entity with no involvement in the facts at issue.

The Tribunal ordered that VP Protection and GDI be added as respondents, and that Cushman & Wakefield Ltd. be removed.

The appellants, representing a local union, appealed a trial judgment that dismissed their claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of confidence against former union employees who left to form a competing union.

The respondents cross-appealed the trial judge's finding that they breached their duty of loyalty by soliciting union stewards before resigning, and the damages awarded for that breach.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings on liability, concluding that the former business manager was not a fiduciary and that the employees breached their duty of loyalty by competing while still employed.

However, the court allowed the cross-appeal on damages, reducing the awards to nominal damages of $500 per employee because the union failed to prove the breach caused actual financial loss.

The Plaintiff, David Bain, sought costs and pre-judgment interest following a successful wrongful dismissal trial against UBS Securities Canada Inc. and UBS Securities LLC, where he recovered over $2.5 million.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 factors and the principle of proportionality, fixed partial indemnity costs for the Plaintiff at $225,000 plus HST of $29,250 and disbursements of $15,000, totaling $269,250.

The court also determined that pre-judgment interest should be calculated on a lump sum basis, awarding $122,756.03, given the Defendants' failure to provide salary continuance or a bonus upon termination.

David Bain, a Managing Director, Head of Canadian M&A at UBS, was terminated without cause after 14 years of service.

He claimed damages for wrongful dismissal, including an extended notice period, unpaid bonuses for 2012 and a stub period in 2013, vacation pay, benefits, referral fees, and mitigation expenses.

The court found the appropriate notice period to be 18 months, determined that bonuses were an integral part of his compensation, and that UBS failed to exercise its discretion fairly in denying bonuses due to his termination.

The court awarded damages based on salary and bonuses, as well as other claimed expenses.

The action against UBS Securities LLC was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing the application after the claimant passed away and the applicant failed to respond to a direction to provide a certificate of appointment of estate trustee.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request, accepting the applicant's assertion that she did not receive the correspondence.

The application was deferred for four months to allow the applicant to take steps to have an estate trustee appointed.

The plaintiff, FLS Transportation Services Inc., sought an interim injunction against former employees and their new employer, Charger Logistics Inc., to restrain them from working for a competitor, soliciting clients and employees, and misusing confidential information.

The court applied the three-part test for an interlocutory injunction (serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, balance of convenience) and also considered the "clean hands" doctrine.

The court found that FLS failed to establish a strong prima facie case for breach of restrictive covenants, breach of confidence, or fiduciary duty, largely due to FLS's own prior statements in other proceedings that the information was not confidential.

Furthermore, FLS failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

The motion was dismissed, also noting that FLS's conduct in misrepresenting the court's order to a client constituted a failure to come to court with "clean hands."

The plaintiffs, having achieved partial success against individual "HOPE defendants" for breach of loyalty but failing entirely against "Carpenter defendants" for interference with economic interests, sought substantial costs.

The defendants, having largely succeeded, proposed the plaintiffs pay a portion of their costs or that each party bear their own.

The court, emphasizing proportionality and the modest damages awarded against the HOPE defendants, ordered that each party bear their own costs, finding this outcome to be fair and proportionate given the complex "turf warfare" between unions and the disparate success against different defendant groups.