Jonathan Pitblado

The appellant employer appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding that it had constructively dismissed the respondent employee and discriminated against her based on disability.

The trial judge found that the employer created a poisoned work environment by harassing the employee while she was on medical leave, including making an inappropriate unannounced visit to her home.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings of fact were entitled to deference and that the employee had not condoned the conduct or abandoned her employment.

The award of damages for constructive dismissal and under the Human Rights Code was upheld.

The defendant employer brought a motion to strike a paragraph in the plaintiff's statement of claim that referenced a settlement offer made at the time of termination.

The plaintiff alleged the offer was abusive and warranted punitive damages because it withheld Employment Standards Act entitlements unless a release was signed.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the pleading raised a valid claim for punitive damages with an air of reality, as the offer could be construed as containing a threat.

The plaintiff, Mary Ann Pepper, brought a Rule 76 Simplified Procedure trial claiming damages for wrongful dismissal, breach of implied covenants, and damages under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Human Rights Code, alleging constructive dismissal or discrimination based on mental health.

The defendant, Jeff Lamb, argued the plaintiff resigned after refusing a reasonable accommodation.

The court found the plaintiff was not a reliable historian and that the accommodation offered by the defendant was reasonable.

The court concluded that the plaintiff had resigned and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff, a tire technician, sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal and discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code, alleging he was terminated because of his drug addiction.

The court found that the employer had accommodated the plaintiff's addiction and that the termination was instead the result of cumulative insubordination, workplace harassment, and a refusal to cooperate in a workplace violence investigation.

The human rights claim was dismissed.

However, because the employer chose to terminate without cause rather than for cause, the court awarded the plaintiff 2.5 months of reasonable notice, less the two weeks already paid under the Employment Standards Act, totaling $5,808.00.

The applicants, the estranged wife and daughter of the respondent, brought an application for an oppression remedy under the Business Corporations Act, seeking to remove the respondent from the family's chemical business and force him to sell his shares to them.

The respondent brought a counter-application seeking the reverse.

The court found that the relationship between the parties had irreparably broken down, resulting in a corporate deadlock.

Applying section 207 of the Act, the court ordered the respondent, who was the founder and primary manager of the business, to buy out the applicants' shares at fair market value, as this aligned with the parties' reasonable expectations.

The appellant employee was laid off after seven years of employment and subsequently paid his minimum entitlements under the Employment Standards Act.

He sued for wrongful dismissal, arguing the layoff was a constructive dismissal and that the employer's breach, along with its failed after-the-fact allegation of just cause, precluded it from relying on the employment contract's termination clause.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that neither the constructive dismissal nor the failed just cause defence prevented the employer from invoking the contractual provision limiting severance to the statutory minimums.

The plaintiff brought a civil action for wrongful dismissal and damages for discrimination under the Human Rights Code following termination after approximately 16 months of employment.

The employer conceded insufficient notice but argued that termination resulted from a corporate restructuring and sale of a business division.

The court applied the Bardal factors and determined reasonable notice to be three months given the employee’s age, position, and short tenure.

The court further found that the employer’s insistence on a complete recovery before permitting a return to work and its conduct surrounding termination demonstrated that the employee’s disability was a significant factor in the dismissal, contrary to s. 5(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for wrongful dismissal and $20,000 in compensation under s. 46.1 for discrimination.

The plaintiff property owner sought damages for water leakage that occurred during roof replacement work performed by the defendant contractor.

The plaintiff alleged negligence and claimed costs associated with interior water damage and repairs to an HVAC gas valve.

The court held that the contractor met the applicable standard of care and followed industry practice, including the use of temporary seals and the absence of tarpaulins over the roof.

The evidence established that the roof was already in poor condition and that the leak likely resulted from a spontaneous split in the existing tar-paper rather than the contractor’s work.

The plaintiff also failed to prove causation or quantify damages related to the HVAC repair.

The claim was dismissed.

The defendant was charged under s. 18(1) of the Dog Owner's Liability Act for an incident on March 22, 2012, in which a dog named Mac killed a cat named Barn Mother on a farm in the Municipality of West Elgin.

The defendant brought a Charter application alleging a violation of her right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding no unreasonable delay.

On the merits, the court found that the defendant was an "owner" of the dog under the Act, that the cat was a "domestic animal" and that the defendant failed to establish a due diligence defence.

The defendant was found guilty of the offence.

The plaintiff brought an action to recover payment for work performed under an informal oral contract.

The court permitted amendments to the pleadings to correct the plaintiff’s capacity and to add a corporate defendant allegedly involved in the contract.

The defendant asserted he acted solely as an agent for the corporation, but the court held that a party claiming to have acted as an agent bears the onus of proving the other party knew of that capacity.

Finding the evidence evenly balanced on that issue, the court concluded the defendant failed to discharge the onus.

Judgment was awarded against the individual defendant for $50,000, with the claim against the corporate defendant dismissed without costs.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a registered nurse for her handling of an aggressive elderly client with dementia.

The nurse intervened when the client was found yelling at a roommate.

While the panel found the initial intervention to remove the client from the roommate's bed was appropriate, it held that the nurse breached the standard of practice by subsequently removing the client's shoes and pants, which escalated the situation.

Allegations of physical abuse, aggressive handling, and improper documentation were dismissed.

The panel imposed a penalty requiring the nurse to complete remedial sessions with a nursing expert.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, awarding costs to the respondent in the amount of $8,000.

The appellant, an insurance broker, was dismissed for cause by the respondent employers who alleged incompetence, primarily based on a failure to secure coverage for a client.

The trial judge found no just cause, noting the employers had condoned earlier alleged errors by offering continued employment, and awarded damages for wrongful dismissal.

The Divisional Court overturned the trial decision, finding the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and misapplied the doctrine of condonation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the trial judgment, holding that the Divisional Court failed to accord proper deference to the trial judge's findings of mixed fact and law regarding condonation and his assessment of the evidence.