Julie A. O’Donnell

The plaintiff, a former employee of Torstar who signed a full and final release upon her dismissal in 2017, brought an action claiming that subsequent correspondence with the CEO in 2020 constituted a binding agreement to pay her compensation for alleged anti-black racism.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim.

The court granted the motion, finding it plain and obvious that the correspondence did not constitute an enforceable contract and the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

The statement of claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend.

This is a costs decision following a successful summary judgment motion in an employment contract dispute.

The plaintiff, Bill Roberts, was awarded $672,452.96.

Roberts sought substantial indemnity costs of $110,309.25, arguing the defendant's defence was unreasonable.

The defendant, Zoomermedia Limited, contended for reduced partial indemnity costs, citing the plaintiff's initial claim versus recovery ratio and alleged "over-lawyering." The court denied substantial indemnity costs, finding no basis for a punitive award.

However, it awarded Roberts partial indemnity costs of $80,000, all-inclusive, recognizing him as the successful party despite the reduction from his original claim, and acknowledging some overlapping or redundant work by counsel.

The applicant requested the production of an unredacted version of a third e-mail exchanged between the respondent and Great West Life regarding her short-term disability application.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the e-mail formed part of a chain with two other e-mails previously ordered produced in an earlier interim decision.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of unredacted emails exchanged between the respondent and Great-West Life regarding her short-term disability claim.

The respondent and Great-West Life opposed the request, arguing the redacted portions contained confidential commercial information about the claims adjudication process under PIPEDA.

The Tribunal found the unredacted emails were arguably relevant to the applicant's claims of reprisal and failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal ordered their production, concluding that the privacy interests were outweighed by the potential probative value of the information.

The respondent in a human rights application brought a motion for the production of various documents, including the applicant's medical records relating to conflicts with previous employers, previous settlement documents, and clinical notes from her treating practitioners.

The Tribunal applied the 'arguable relevance' test and balanced it against the applicant's privacy interests.

The Tribunal denied the requests for medical records regarding previous employer conflicts and previous settlement documents, finding them not arguably relevant and overly intrusive.

The Tribunal ordered the production of specific clinical notes from the relevant time period and the curriculum vitae of a practitioner expected to provide opinion evidence.

The applicant alleged discrimination and harassment based on disability and sex, as well as reprisal, against her employer, her union, and several individuals.

She claimed the employer and union failed to enforce a smoking policy to accommodate her asthma, failed to protect her from sexual harassment by a coworker, and reprised against her for raising these issues.

Following the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal assessed whether the claims had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the employer and union respondents, finding no evidence that they failed to address her smoking concerns, failed to respond appropriately to her harassment allegations given her refusal to provide particulars or pursue a complaint, or reprised against her.

The application was permitted to proceed solely against the individual respondent alleged to have committed the sexual harassment.

The defendant employer moved to strike portions of an amended statement of claim in a wrongful dismissal action on the basis that they pleaded privileged settlement communications.

The court applied the three-part settlement privilege framework and held that litigation was not contemplated until defence counsel became involved in November 2011.

Allegations reflecting unconditional assertions of contractual rights or the defendant’s actual legal position were not protected, but paragraphs expressly referring to attempts to resolve the sabbatical issue on a without prejudice basis during the litigious period were privileged.

The motion was granted only in part, with two paragraphs struck and leave to redraft.

The applicant requested to reactivate his deferred human rights application, amend it, and expedite the hearing.

The application had been deferred pending the outcome of related proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) regarding the union's decision not to proceed with his grievance.

The applicant chose to pursue an internal union appeal, which would not conclude until 2016, but refused to withdraw it to reactivate the OLRB and Tribunal proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that the risk of conflicting determinations remained and that the labour relations proceedings should be resolved first.

The respondent requested early production of audio-recordings surreptitiously made by the applicant during meetings with the respondent's representatives.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondent failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify early production before the normal disclosure process under Rule 16.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by his former employer based on record of offences and association with a person identified by a Code ground, following a workplace altercation and his subsequent termination.

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

The Tribunal found the application was untimely and had no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant had no convictions constituting a record of offences and provided no information linking his termination to any protected ground under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal by his employer and union regarding a job competition.

The union initially filed a grievance but later decided not to proceed, prompting the applicant to file duty of fair representation and unfair labour practice applications with the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal deferred the human rights application pending the resolution of the Board proceedings and any subsequent grievance arbitration, noting the substantial overlap of facts and issues.

The applicant requested an order to amend her human rights application to include the ground of creed, explaining she inadvertently omitted it when self-represented.

The respondents opposed, claiming prejudice and the need for further investigation.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the original application explicitly linked the applicant's head scarf to her religion, meaning the respondents were not prejudiced by the amendment.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had previously signed a Full and Final Release in exchange for a severance package.

The applicant argued he was stressed, not sleeping well, and lacked capacity when he signed the release.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant lacked the legal capacity to execute the settlement documents or that the respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of any incapacity.

The Tribunal held that the release was binding and dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his human rights application as untimely and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued he had new evidence from former and current employees regarding a screening test and that the Tribunal erred in its timeliness analysis.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the applicant failed to explain why the new evidence could not have been obtained earlier and that his arguments regarding a series of incidents were an impermissible attempt to repair deficiencies in his original case presentation.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging sexual harassment, failure to accommodate, and reprisal filed requests to add additional respondents, amend her application, and obtain production of documents.

The Tribunal denied the requests to add respondents and amend the application, finding insufficient connection to the original allegations, significant delay, and potential prejudice given the advanced stage of the proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the request for production in part, ordering the disclosure of arguably relevant documents relating to the termination of the applicant's union membership, workplace policies, and her prior complaints.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, more than a year after his employment was terminated and he signed a full and final release.

The respondent sought early dismissal of the application due to delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, concluding it was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

Ford Motor Company of Canada applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to revoke a Review Officer's Order requiring it to amend its pay equity plan due to alleged changed circumstances at its Windsor establishment.

The Tribunal found that Ford failed to establish a prima facie case that its restructuring did not affect the pay equity plan.

However, the Tribunal also found the Review Officer's Order too vague to confirm, revoke, or vary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought to revoke a Review Officer's Order requiring an amended pay equity plan.

At a preliminary hearing, the agent for the respondent group of anonymous non-union employees sought to withdraw his Response, citing an inability to obtain instructions.

The applicant opposed the withdrawal without proper notice to the group members.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that the agent could not withdraw his Response until he obtained the names of the group members from the Pay Equity Office and provided them with notice of his intention to withdraw, giving them an opportunity to appoint a new agent.

The Tribunal directed the agent to complete this process and reserved on other preliminary issues.

The applicant union applied for certification.

At the commencement of the hearing, the responding employer requested an adjournment because certain employees had written to the Board requesting the representation vote be overturned under s. 11(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but had not received notice of the hearing.

The union objected on the basis that the employees' submissions were untimely and not delivered to the other parties.

The Board granted the adjournment, finding that regardless of the merit of the union's arguments, the employees should be given an opportunity to respond.