4 total
Mareva injunction granted against former purchasing agent due to strong prima facie case of fraud and risk of asset dissipation.
The plaintiff, a meat processing company, brought a motion for a Mareva injunction against its former purchasing agent and related corporate and individual defendants.
The plaintiff alleged the purchasing agent engaged in a fraudulent scheme to receive secret commissions on meat purchases by funnelling money through a third-party corporation.
The court found an overwhelming prima facie case of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.
Given the defendants' failure to produce relevant financial documents and evidence of asset dissipation, the court concluded there was a real risk of assets being removed or disposed of, and granted the Mareva injunction.
Labour injunction denied as employer failed to prove irreparable harm and police assistance was effective.
The applicant employer sought a labour injunction under section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act to restrain picketing by locked-out employees.
The court applied the four-part test for a labour injunction and found that the employer failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as there were no criminal charges, civil actions, or disciplined employees, and the alleged loss of business was a bald assertion.
Furthermore, the court found that the police had been responsive and effective in maintaining the peace.
The application was dismissed.
Human rights claim allowed to proceed; irrelevant pleading allegations struck.
The defendant employer brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the plaintiff’s human rights claim from an amended statement of claim arising from his termination following public statements about the Syrian conflict.
The defendant argued the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because the alleged dismissal was based on political opinion, which is not a protected ground under the Ontario Human Rights Code.
The court held that, accepting the pleaded facts as true, it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiff’s views could not constitute a creed linked to protected grounds such as religion or place of origin.
Accordingly, the human rights claim was allowed to proceed.
However, certain paragraphs of the pleading were struck under Rule 25.11 as irrelevant and prejudicial to a fair trial.
Arbitrator's decision to count paid bereavement leave towards statutory emergency leave entitlement was reasonable.
The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing a grievance.
The grievance challenged the employer's practice of counting paid bereavement leave under the collective agreement towards the 10 days of unpaid personal emergency leave provided by section 50 of the Employment Standards Act, 2000.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and the statute was reasonable and within a range of acceptable outcomes.
