Hendrik Thomas Nieuwland

The plaintiff union sued former employees and officials associated with a rival union following the creation of a new local that successfully organized workers previously represented by the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, breach of employee duties of loyalty and confidentiality, and unlawful interference with contractual relations.

The court held the principal departing employee was not a fiduciary and that most information used in the organizing campaign was either public or not proven to have been misused.

However, several former employees breached basic duties of loyalty by preparing and initiating a competing organizing campaign before resigning and by failing to give reasonable notice of departure.

The court rejected claims of tortious interference against the rival union and its representatives.

Limited damages were awarded against the former employees for breach of employee duties.

The applicant, a Recruitment Specialist, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and pregnancy, and reprisal, after she was denied a significant salary increase and her employment was terminated shortly after she requested maternity leave.

The respondents maintained that the termination was due to a global budget reduction and restructuring, and that the applicant was selected for position elimination due to a decreased need for recruiters in her specific area and negative client feedback.

The Tribunal found that while the timing of the termination raised an inference of discrimination, the respondents successfully established a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for both the termination and the denial of the salary increase.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants, unionized masonry contractors, appealed an order staying their action against the respondents and denying injunctive relief.

The appellants sought to challenge the legality of a Memorandum of Agreement and collective agreements that prohibited independent contractor arrangements with individual bricklayers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the essential character of the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board and that the appellants had avenues within the labour relations regime to challenge the agreements.

Following a motion in which the defendants successfully obtained a stay of the civil action pending determination by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving parties sought substantial or partial indemnity costs, arguing they were entirely successful and had proceeded on an expedited timeline at the insistence of the responding parties.

The responding parties argued the amounts claimed exceeded reasonable expectations and that substantial indemnity costs were inappropriate because the motion concerned jurisdiction and did not determine substantive rights.

Applying the principles under s.131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that successful parties are generally entitled to costs but that the amount must be fair and reasonable.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to each group of moving parties.

Unionized masonry contractors commenced a civil action alleging that employer associations and construction unions conspired to prevent them from using independent operator payment arrangements with bricklayers through amendments to provincial collective agreements.

The plaintiffs sought declarations that the collective agreements and memorandum of agreement were unlawful, injunctive relief, and damages for economic torts.

The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action on the basis that the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Applying the framework from Weber v. Ontario Hydro, the court held that the essential character of the dispute concerned labour relations issues including the validity and scope of collective agreements and the relationship between employers and unionized workers.

Because those matters fall within the OLRB’s exclusive jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act, the court stayed the action and declined to consider the requested injunctive relief.

The plaintiff brokerage firm moved under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike several paragraphs of the defendants’ statement of defence as scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or non‑compliant with pleading requirements.

The impugned allegations described a toxic workplace environment and managerial conduct said to have forced the individual defendants to submit resignation letters, and also alleged the action was brought for an improper purpose amounting to abuse of process.

The court held that most of the contested paragraphs were relevant to the central issue of whether the defendants voluntarily resigned or were effectively dismissed and therefore were necessary to allow a full defence.

Allegations relating to the plaintiff’s motive were also permitted because they supported a pleaded abuse of process defence.

Only one sentence describing the workplace atmosphere as widely known in the community was struck as irrelevant and included merely for colour.

The defendants appealed a master's order compelling answers and document production arising from an examination for discovery in a commercial dispute involving alleged misuse of confidential information and solicitation of a former employer’s client.

The defendants argued the production order was based on unsubstantiated pleadings, speculation regarding misuse of confidential information, and the discredited doctrine of inevitable disclosure.

The court held that relevance for discovery is determined by the pleadings and that the allegations in the statement of claim sufficiently grounded the requested discovery.

The master properly exercised discretion in balancing proportionality and determining that the information sought was relevant.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a discovery motion seeking an order compelling a former employee to answer refused questions and produce documents relating to services provided to a former client after joining a competitor.

The claim alleged breach of confidence and misuse of confidential information following the departure of senior employees who subsequently serviced the same client at the competing firm.

The court applied the relevance principles governing examinations for discovery under Rules 30.03 and 31.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and considered proportionality under Rule 29.2.03.

The court found the requests were not a fishing expedition because the pleadings contained specific allegations and there was circumstantial evidence supporting the line of inquiry.

The refused questions were ordered to be answered and related documents produced, subject to redaction of irrelevant commercially sensitive information.

The appellant bank appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for constructive dismissal.

The respondent, a senior manager, was relieved of his supervisory duties following employee complaints and offered reassignment options, which he declined.

The trial judge found he was constructively dismissed and had no duty to mitigate by accepting the new positions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's application of the Evans test, as returning to the bank would have subjected the respondent to an atmosphere of embarrassment or humiliation.

Following a successful appeal by the respondents, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondents sought partial indemnity costs of $41,762.66, while the appellant sought substantial indemnity costs for a prior motion.

The Divisional Court ordered each party to bear its own costs of the motion and fixed the respondents' costs of the appeal at $20,000, finding the amount claimed to be beyond what was fair and reasonable.

The appellant was dismissed without cause from his employment as a senior vice-president and part-owner of the respondent company.

The trial judge awarded 5 months' pay in lieu of notice and fixed the share repurchase trigger date at the end of the notice period.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal increased the notice period to 9 months, finding the trial judge overemphasized short service and underemphasized the character of employment and availability of similar employment.

The Court also allowed the cross-appeal, holding that the share repurchase trigger date was the date of termination, not the end of the notice period.

Finally, the Court adjusted the trial costs order, finding that a second settlement offer revoked the first.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing its motion for an interlocutory injunction against a former investment adviser who joined a competing firm and contacted former clients.

The court granted leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding that there were conflicting decisions regarding whether the loss of clients and damage to business reputation in the highly regulated financial services industry constitutes irreparable harm.

The court concluded it was desirable for an appellate court to clarify the law on this issue.

The Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement based on a consent filed by the parties.

The respondent was ordered to pay trial costs of $97,000 to one appellant, and $250,000 plus GST and disbursements to the other appellants.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in relation to the termination of his employment, almost five years after the last incident of discrimination.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the application due to delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a good faith justification for the delay, noting that his involvement in WSIB proceedings did not prevent him from pursuing a human rights complaint concurrently.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent would be prejudiced by the delay, particularly since the corporate respondent ceased operations in 2002.

The application was dismissed.

The employee was terminated from his position as CFO but agreed to the assignment of his employment contract to an affiliated company within the corporate group.

The trial judge found that the contract was terminated and awarded the employee two years' severance pay.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in law by concluding the contract was terminated rather than assigned, and by reversing the burden of proof regarding an alleged forbearance agreement.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the severance award, and the employee's cross-appeal for negligent misrepresentation against the individual defendant was dismissed.

The applicant's counsel requested a last-minute adjournment of the hearing due to a scheduling conflict in the Superior Court of Justice, and subsequently failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant attended but was uncomfortable proceeding without counsel.

Despite the late request and the applicant's failure to comply with document disclosure rules, the Tribunal granted the adjournment to ensure fairness to the applicant, setting a peremptory hearing date.

The respondents' request for $500 in costs was denied as the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to award costs.