Jeremy Hann

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment award of $310,040.88 in damages to its former employee, representing 19 months' pay in lieu of notice plus prejudgment interest and costs.

The motion judge had found the termination clause in the employment agreement unenforceable due to lack of consideration.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the employer's offer of employment to the employee upon the sale of the business constituted valid consideration for the termination clause.

The court distinguished the case from precedents involving variations to a single employment relationship, emphasizing that a new contract with a new employer was formed upon the business sale.

The court remitted the action to trial to address remaining issues regarding ESA compliance and other arguments not previously decided.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference, and the applicant was provided with proper notice.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing or provide any explanation for his absence.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged age discrimination and reprisal after receiving over two years' working notice of termination.

The respondent requested dismissal of the termination and early retirement allegations, arguing they were filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code, which it claimed began when notice was given.

The Tribunal held that the limitation period for a termination begins on the effective date of the termination, not the date notice is given.

As the applicant was still in his working notice period, the termination allegation was not out of time.

The Tribunal deferred issues of prematurity and the timeliness of the specific termination meeting events to the hearing adjudicator.

The appellant employee accepted an offer of employment that did not contain a termination provision.

Nine months later, he signed an employment agreement limiting his termination entitlements to the minimums under the Employment Standards Act.

After being terminated without cause seven years later, he sued for wrongful dismissal and unpaid commissions.

The Court of Appeal held that the termination provision in the subsequent employment agreement was unenforceable for lack of fresh consideration, entitling the appellant to common law reasonable notice.

However, the Court upheld the trial judge's dismissal of the appellant's claims for commissions on a major account finalized after his termination, finding no error in the interpretation of the commission plan or the rejection of his unjust enrichment claim.

The applicant, an ODSP recipient living in a rooming house, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondent car rental company refused to rent him a vehicle.

The respondent required customers without credit cards to provide two utility bills as proof of local residence, which the applicant could not produce because his utilities were included in his rent.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a summary hearing, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal held that the applicant's inability to produce utility bills or obtain a credit card stemmed from his economic circumstances, not his disability, and receipt of public assistance is not a protected ground for services under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the majority of the allegations were untimely as they occurred more than one year before the application was filed, and the applicant did not provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The remaining timely allegations, which included assumptions made by co-workers about where the applicant worked and a wage differential with a more senior co-worker, were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicants, long-term hotel employees, alleged age and nationality discrimination when they were not transferred to the employer's new location.

They also alleged the union failed to fairly represent them.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the applications should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, as the applicants had previously pursued grievances and duty of fair representation complaints at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal dismissed the Gleeson application entirely and the Clarke application against the union, finding those issues had been appropriately dealt with in the prior proceedings.

The Clarke application against the hotel was permitted to proceed to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after she was not selected for a position at a newly opened hotel.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been dealt with in a grievance arbitration process.

The Tribunal found that the reviewer in the grievance process acted as an arbitrator under the Labour Relations Act and had jurisdiction to apply the Code.

Because the arbitrator had considered and dismissed the applicant's discrimination allegations, the Tribunal concluded that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and age.

After failing to respond to Tribunal communications, failing to comply with disclosure obligations, and failing to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning of potential dismissal, the respondent requested the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, an injured worker, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondents, who provided him with Labour Market Re-entry services.

The respondents terminated his services in July 2008 after he refused to sign a consent form, and in April 2010, they refused to reinstate him unless he signed it.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the allegations relating to the 2004-2008 period as untimely, finding the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also dismissed the remaining allegation regarding the April 2010 refusal, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant failed to explain how requiring a consent form amounted to a Code violation or reprisal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending the outcome of union grievances.

Unbeknownst to the Tribunal and the respondents, the union had already withdrawn the grievances prior to the deferral decision.

The applicant later requested to reactivate the application, which the respondents opposed due to the expiration of the 60-day time limit.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation, finding the delay did not amount to an abuse of process.

The Tribunal also denied the respondents' requests to dismiss the application for delay and under s. 45.1 of the Code, as the applicant conceded the older allegations were only for context and the sole remaining timely allegation was not the subject of any grievance.

The applicant, a parking supervisor, alleged discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, and age by his employer and co-workers.

He claimed a co-worker undermined him and that his termination was discriminatory.

The respondents brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application, arguing the matter was already dealt with in an Employment Standards Act proceeding, which the Tribunal denied.

On the merits, the respondents maintained the applicant was terminated for gross misconduct involving the unauthorized exchange of free parking passes for cafeteria beverages.

The Tribunal found no evidence of discrimination or harassment and concluded the employer had a reasonable, non-discriminatory explanation for the termination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil proceeding seeking damages for wrongful dismissal that included allegations of discrimination.

The applicant argued that he had brought a motion to stay the civil proceeding and amend the statement of claim to remove references to the Code.

The Tribunal held that a motion to stay or amend the civil claim does not prevent the application of s. 34(11), as the civil proceeding had not been finally determined or withdrawn.

The application was dismissed as barred by s. 34(11).

The applicant, a former executive assistant, alleged discrimination, harassment, and a poisoned work environment on the basis of disability, ancestry, ethnic origin, and place of origin, following her termination.

She claimed her role was diminished, she was yelled at, and a directive to speak only English at work was discriminatory.

The respondents argued the termination resulted from a complete breakdown in the employment relationship and inappropriate workplace behaviour.

The Tribunal found that the language directive was a response to culturally sensitive concerns and not discriminatory.

The Tribunal concluded there was no pattern of discriminatory conduct, but rather a non-discriminatory breakdown in the employment relationship, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a transitional application alleging reprisal in employment against her former employer and several individuals.

She claimed that a coworker demeaned her and that management failed to intervene.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a Case Resolution Conference, finding that the applicant failed to identify any protected ground of discrimination or provide evidence that the alleged conduct was a reprisal for claiming or enforcing a right under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming his employment was terminated because he was injured and unable to work, and that the employer interfered with his WSIB claim.

The respondent maintained the layoff was strictly for economic reasons due to declining sales.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had a disability, the respondent successfully rebutted the prima facie inference of discrimination by demonstrating the layoff was based on economic factors, seniority, and skill set.

The application was dismissed.