Jock Climie

The applicant police services board sought judicial review of a grievance arbitrator's decision that granted retroactive statutory holiday benefits to union members for the National Day of Mourning for Queen Elizabeth II.

The arbitrator had found that the collective agreements only required a day to be 'proclaimed' by the Governor General to become a paid holiday.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and quashed the decision, finding the arbitrator's interpretation unreasonable as it failed to consider the parties' mutual intention and led to the absurd result that any symbolic proclamation would create an additional paid holiday.

The applicant police officer pled guilty to misconduct and was demoted.

He subsequently went on extended sick leave, which impacted the financial consequences of his penalty.

After an arbitrator dismissed his grievance regarding the penalty's implementation, the applicant brought a motion under section 78 of the Police Services Act asking the Commission to vary the penalty or return it to the Hearing Officer.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 78 to revisit a penalty due to changed circumstances, and that the applicant was barred from relitigating the issue by the doctrine of issue estoppel.

The plaintiff sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal following an asset sale of the business.

He claimed entitlement to 12 months' notice under his employment agreement due to a change in control.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by unreasonably rejecting an offer of comparable employment from the purchasing company.

Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff had fully mitigated his damages through earnings generated by his own corporation during the notice period.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the defendant brought an eve-of-trial motion to adjourn the trial and compel further disclosure and discovery regarding the plaintiff's mitigation efforts through his corporation.

The plaintiff had previously answered 'zero' when asked about personal income from the corporation, but recently produced a ledger showing significant shareholder loan repayments.

The court granted leave for the motion, finding the plaintiff had an ongoing obligation to correct misleading discovery answers.

The court ordered limited additional documentary production and a brief discovery, but declined to adjourn the trial, directing that the discovery be completed before the trial commenced the following week.

A real estate investment management company appealed a trial judge's decision finding that it had repudiated its contract with a real estate broker and his operating company.

The trial judge found that the company had recruited the broker to undertake higher-value transactions in Ottawa but then repudiated the agreement by unilaterally imposing a $10 million ceiling on transactions and reserving transactions above that amount exclusively to its National Retail Investment Group.

The appellate court upheld the repudiation finding, holding that the trial judge correctly applied the legal test and made no palpable and overriding error.

The respondents cross-appealed the costs award, and the appellate court granted leave and allowed the cross-appeal, increasing costs from $40,000 to $111,288 based on the rule 49.10(1) offer to settle.

The Plaintiffs moved to have the Defendant found in contempt for allegedly breaching an interim order by making statements in a private chat group.

The Defendant argued the Plaintiffs breached the implied undertaking rule by relying on these posts and that the postings did not contravene the order.

The court granted the Plaintiffs leave to rely on the postings but dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the Defendant's conduct was not clearly in breach of the order, which should be narrowly construed given the importance of free expression in defamation cases.

The court also noted the Defendant's immediate removal of the post upon request demonstrated an intention to comply.

The plaintiffs, a commercial real estate broker and his company, brought an action against the defendant brokerage firm seeking a declaration that their independent contractor agreement was terminated without cause, thereby forgiving a $225,000 loan.

The defendant counterclaimed for repayment of the loan, alleging the plaintiff terminated the agreement or was terminated for default.

The court rectified the agreement to include a mistakenly omitted provision regarding the plaintiff's leadership role and analyzed the interpretation of the plaintiff's role as the Ottawa Practice Lead for investments, finding that no strict $10 million ceiling was placed on the plaintiff's transactions.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that found a grievor was a member of the full-time support staff bargaining unit and thus entitled to grieve a job competition.

The arbitrator had included the grievor's time as a temporary replacement worker in calculating whether he was regularly employed for more than 24 hours a week.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable, noting that the arbitrator misunderstood the employer's position, misapplied past jurisprudence, and failed to recognize that temporary replacement employees are already part of the full-time bargaining unit.

The application for judicial review was granted and the award was quashed.

The plaintiff, DST Consulting Engineers Inc., brought a motion to compel answers to refusals and re-attendance at examinations for discovery by the defendants, 2299910 Ontario Inc. and CanRil Corporation.

DST claimed $31,114.57 for environmental engineering assessment services.

The court found that the defendants' corporate representative, Charles Guilbault, lacked basic knowledge and provided evasive answers, frustrating the discovery process.

The motion was granted, compelling the defendants to answer most refused questions, provide particulars of alleged deficiencies, and ordering a second examination with a different representative, Terrence Guilbault.

The appellant sued the Government of Nunavut in Ontario for wrongful dismissal.

The motion judge found no real and substantial connection to Ontario and that Nunavut was the more appropriate forum.

On appeal, the appellant argued Ontario was a 'forum of necessity' because returning to Nunavut would trigger severe mental illness symptoms.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that the appellant's mental health challenges did not rise to the exceptional level required for the forum of necessity doctrine, noting that accommodations could be sought in a Nunavut court.

The defendant territorial government brought a motion to dismiss or permanently stay a wrongful dismissal action commenced in Ontario by a former employee who had worked in Nunavut.

The court applied the jurisdiction simpliciter test from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda to determine whether a real and substantial connection existed between the dispute and Ontario.

The plaintiff relied on factors including recruitment activities, an Ottawa liaison office, the use of an Ontario-based investigator, and the administration of disability benefits in Ontario.

The court held these did not establish that the defendant carried on business in Ontario and therefore no presumptive connecting factor existed.

In any event, the court found that Nunavut would clearly be the more appropriate forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to determine the reasonable notice period following her without-cause termination.

The 41-year-old plaintiff was employed as a middle manager for 2.5 years.

The court found that the employer's contributions to CPP and EI should be included in the calculation of her compensation package.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court fixed the reasonable notice period at six months and awarded damages of $23,315, representing the balance owing after deducting severance payments already made.

The respondents brought a request to remove four personal respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment.

The organizational respondent accepted full liability for any discrimination found to have been committed by three supervisory personal respondents in the course of their employment.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal removed the three supervisors as personal respondents.

However, the Tribunal declined to remove a co-worker alleged to have engaged in racial harassment, noting that an employer may not be vicariously liable for harassment under section 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, a Home Care Advisor, suffered a near-fatal heart attack and subsequently experienced depression.

After a period of long-term disability, she attempted a graduated return to work.

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to accommodate her disability, citing issues with her assigned tasks and the lack of a dedicated workspace.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had met both its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate, noting that the applicant's restrictions did not require a specific workspace or specific tasks.

The application was dismissed, as the applicant's inability to continue working was not attributable to any failure to accommodate by the respondent.

The defendant brought a motion to determine costs after the parties agreed to end the litigation.

The plaintiff had originally sued the defendant, a former employee, for allegedly misappropriating confidential information and company property.

The action was ultimately discontinued as the anticipated damages did not materialize.

The court found that the litigation was not unreasonable when commenced, but since neither party prevailed on the merits, it ordered that each party bear its own costs.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of a service on the basis of disability.

A three-day hearing was scheduled.

The applicant and his next friend failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The grievor, a housekeeping employee with 18 years of service, grieved a five-day suspension imposed for allegedly spitting on a co-worker during an argument.

The employer and the union presented conflicting versions of the incident.

The arbitrator preferred the co-worker's evidence, corroborated by the immediate observation of spit by the Human Resources Manager, over the grievor's denials.

Finding that the grievor failed to take responsibility or show remorse, the arbitrator upheld the five-day suspension and dismissed the grievance.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing its claims against a former employee for breach of a non-solicitation clause and misuse of confidential information.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the former employee did not solicit the client, but rather was approached by the client, and that the information used was provided by the client itself.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant, an independent contractor, appealed a trial judgment finding he breached non-solicitation, non-competition, and confidentiality clauses in his contract with the respondent consulting firm.

The appellant had allowed a competitor to submit his resume for a government contract he was already working on through the respondent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the restrictive covenant was overly broad and unreasonable, as it prevented solicitation of any client or prospect without spatial limitation.

The Court also found no breach of confidentiality, as the appellant merely provided his own skills and qualifications to the competitor, which did not constitute confidential information.

The grievor, a full-time non-rotational security guard, grieved the employer's decision to deny her application for a full-time rotational security guard position.

The employer argued the matter was res judicata due to a previous arbitration decision three years prior that found the grievor lacked the necessary leadership, communication, and judgment skills.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that res judicata did not apply because the grievance concerned a new job posting, but accepted the previous decision's findings regarding the job's requirements.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding the union failed to demonstrate that the grievor had acquired the requisite skills and abilities in the intervening three years to meet the threshold for the position.