James Glen Knight

The appellants brought a motion to set aside, amend, or vary the Court of Appeal's previous order regarding trial costs, arguing procedural unfairness, inconsistency with costs principles, and insufficient reasons.

The motion was brought under rules 59.06(1) and (2)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the relief sought was not available under rule 59.06, as it was an attempt to reargue issues already adjudicated.

The court clarified that challenges to discretionary orders, procedural fairness, or adequacy of reasons are typically grounds for seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The court also addressed and dismissed belated arguments regarding the order settlement procedure under rule 59.04 and the inapplicability of rule 37.14.

The appellants, former portfolio managers, appealed a trial decision dismissing their claim for over $1.3 million in performance fees and a discretionary bonus from their former employer.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellants were not contractually entitled to performance fees directly from the respondent, as their entitlement was structured through a side agreement with a lead portfolio manager.

However, the Court found the trial judge erred in precluding the appellants from arguing their entitlement to a discretionary bonus, as this claim was sufficiently pleaded.

The Court awarded each appellant $115,000 for the discretionary bonus, determining that the employer's discretion in awarding bonuses was not exercised fairly and reasonably given the fund's exceptional performance and bonuses paid to similarly situated employees.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and harassment in her employment, which culminated in her termination.

Following the filing of the application, the parties engaged in a mediated settlement process during a labour arbitration regarding her termination grievance.

The parties signed Minutes of Settlement that explicitly resolved all claims the applicant had or could have under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent sought early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not under duress when signing the settlement and that permitting the application to continue would be an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on disability following her layoff.

The application was deferred pending the outcome of union grievances related to the same layoff.

The grievances were settled through arbitration, resulting in the applicant's reinstatement and monetary compensation for human rights infringements.

The Tribunal held a teleconference hearing and determined that the arbitration appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, including allegations against the personal respondent.

The application was dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate his disability by his employer.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance process under the collective agreement dealing with the same issues.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application, noting that the grievance process was active and overlapping with the human rights allegations, in order to avoid concurrent proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination based on disability, which was deferred pending grievance proceedings.

After the grievance process concluded, the applicant requested to reactivate the application and remove the corporate respondent, while the respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate because the grievance process was complete, and directed that the requests to remove the corporate respondent and dismiss the application be addressed at a future teleconference hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming his employer failed to accommodate his lifting restrictions following bypass surgery.

He also alleged his union mishandled his grievance and failed to advance it to arbitration.

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

Finding no evidence or allegation that the union's conduct was based on a prohibited ground, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the union.

The applicant filed applications alleging breach of settlement, discrimination, and reprisal.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests for orders.

The applicant's request to remove respondent counsel for an alleged conflict of interest during mediation was dismissed, as there was no evidence counsel acted for the applicant.

The respondent's request for a cease and desist order against the applicant was deferred.

The applicant's request to bar a respondent from participating was dismissed because the respondent properly relied on an exemption to filing a complete response due to a concurrent civil proceeding.

The Tribunal directed the parties to make submissions on the applicability of section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code at the upcoming hearing.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding a binding employment agreement and awarding damages for wrongful dismissal, including Wallace damages.

The appellants argued the trial judge ignored evidence regarding the agreement and that the respondent failed to mitigate his damages by refusing a consulting arrangement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessments and concluding the respondent was not obliged to accept a demeaning consulting arrangement to mitigate his damages.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision, arguing it was entitled to notice of the arbitration because the decision affected its attempts to unionize security guards in the film industry.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicant was only indirectly affected by the arbitration and therefore not entitled to notice.

Furthermore, the court held it was inappropriate to proceed with judicial review while parallel proceedings regarding the same issues were pending before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant union filed a related employer and sale of a business application against several responding companies.

One responding company brought a preliminary motion arguing the union failed to plead a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the preliminary motion, noting the low threshold for pleading a prima facie case in such applications due to the reverse onus provisions.

The Board also addressed procedural matters regarding amended pleadings and scheduling.

The applicant filed an application alleging a violation of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Having considered the joint submissions of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application as it did not disclose a violation of the Act.

The Board also amended the style of cause to reflect the correct name of the applicant.

The applicants filed a complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging violations of the Act and a failure to comply with a settlement.

The parties agreed that the 'Highway 407 Project Labour Framework Agreement' was a valid and enforceable agreement.

The Board declared the agreement to be a written settlement of a proceeding under the Act, enforceable pursuant to section 96(7).

Finding a genuine dispute over an alleged violation of the agreement, the Board directed the applicants and the responding union to submit their dispute to arbitration as required by the agreement.

The applicant union filed an application against the responding party employer.

Based on the joint submissions of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that it did not disclose a violation of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board also ordered that the decision could not be referred to by either party in any subsequent litigation.

The union brought applications alleging unfair labour practices, an unlawful lock-out, and seeking declarations of a sale of business and related employer status following the bankruptcy and subsequent sale of Vulcan Packaging Inc. to a purchasing group.

The Board found that a sale of business had occurred and that the entities constituted a single employer, meaning the collective agreement continued to bind the purchasers.

However, the Board dismissed the unfair labour practice complaints, finding no breach in the employer's failure to disclose financial difficulties during prior negotiations, the issuance of Records of Employment, or the signing of a side agreement requiring wage concessions.

The Board also declined to issue cease and desist relief regarding the alleged unlawful lock-out, concluding that it made labour relations sense to permit continued negotiations over concessions necessary for the plant's economic viability.

The applicant union alleged a sale of a business from Ontario Place Corporation to MCA Concerts Canada, claiming MCA was bound by a collective agreement as a successor employer.

The Board determined as a preliminary issue whether a collective bargaining relationship existed between the union and Ontario Place Corporation.

The Board found that the historical arrangement for supplying stagehands and lighting personnel was a sub-contracting relationship for specialized technical services, not a collective bargaining relationship.

The letter agreements lacked standard collective agreement language and were seasonal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Georgian Construction, Georgian Group, Cresmark, and Krestmark constituted one employer.

The Board found that Georgian Construction, Georgian Group, and Cresmark carried on associated or related activities in the residential sector of the construction industry under common control or direction.

The Board exercised its discretion to issue a related employer declaration to prevent the erosion of the union's bargaining rights.

The application was dismissed as against Krestmark, which was not a construction company.

During a lawful strike by cleaning staff employed by Modern Building Cleaning at the Ontario Science Centre, the union alleged that both Modern and the Centre breached the replacement worker provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The Centre's management had picked up garbage, and Modern had introduced new cleaning machinery.

On preliminary objections, the Board dismissed the allegations against the Centre, finding no prima facie case that it acted 'on behalf of' Modern.

The Board also dismissed the allegation that introducing new machinery breached section 73.1, as the statute does not prohibit the use of machinery to perform struck work.

The remaining allegations regarding bargaining unit personnel performing struck work were allowed to proceed, after which the parties settled.

The applicant union sought a single employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act following the closure of a unionized warehouse and the transfer of its work to a newly consolidated, non-unionized warehouse operated by a related corporate entity.

The responding parties conceded they carried on related activities under common control but argued against the declaration on the basis of employee wishes and corporate reorganization.

The Board granted the declaration, finding that the corporate reorganization incidentally undermined established bargaining rights and that the employer could not rely on the situation it created to deny the declaration.

The applicant union filed applications for certification to represent taxi drivers operating under the banners of various taxicab brokers in Metropolitan Toronto.

The central issue was whether the drivers were 'dependent contractors' under section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, or independent contractors.

The Board examined the economic relationship between the drivers and the brokers, noting that the drivers derived a substantial portion of their income from dispatched fares and corporate account chits provided by the brokers.

The Board also found that the brokers exercised significant control over the drivers through rules, policies, and the threat of suspension from the dispatch system.

The Board concluded that the drivers were in a position of economic dependence and under an obligation to perform duties for the brokers, more closely resembling the relationship of an employee than that of an independent contractor.

The drivers were therefore found to be dependent contractors.