Landon P. Young

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment claiming constructive dismissal after his employer unilaterally cancelled his company vehicle benefit.

The court found the cancellation constituted a significant reduction in compensation and amounted to constructive dismissal.

The employment contract's termination clause was deemed void for ambiguity regarding statutory minimums.

The court set a reasonable notice period of 10 months, but reduced it by 30% to 7 months because the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by moving away from the job market.

The parent company was found to be a common employer.

Damages were awarded in the amount of $56,025.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for wrongful dismissal, arguing that the termination clause in his employment contract was unenforceable.

The court found the termination clause violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000, by improperly combining notice and severance pay and by contracting around the "willful misconduct" standard for just cause, rendering the entire contract void.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded the plaintiff four months of common law reasonable notice, plus benefits, less amounts already paid and mitigated earnings, but declined to award a discretionary bonus.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant sued for wrongful dismissal and moved for summary judgment, arguing the termination clause in his employment contract was void for violating the Employment Standards Act.

The respondent conceded the 'Termination for Cause' provision was void but argued the 'Termination with Notice' provision was valid and severable.

The Court of Appeal held that employment agreements must be interpreted as a whole.

Because the 'for cause' provision violated the ESA, all termination provisions in the contract were rendered unenforceable, regardless of whether the employer relied on the illegal provision or if there was a severability clause.

The appeal was allowed.

The plaintiff employee sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without cause.

He argued that an illegal 'Termination for Cause' clause in his employment agreement rendered the entire termination provision, including the 'Termination of Employment with Notice' clause, void and unenforceable.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the 'Termination of Employment with Notice' clause was a stand-alone provision that complied with the Employment Standards Act and was enforceable on its own terms.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, the defendant's cross-motion was granted, and the action was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of sex and disability.

He claimed that co-workers harassed him for reporting their alleged illegal conduct, that a co-worker made sexually explicit comments to him, and that the employer failed to accommodate his nosebleed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the general harassment was not linked to a Code ground, the employer responded reasonably to the sexual harassment complaint, the comments did not create a poisoned work environment, and the nosebleed did not constitute a disability under the Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment because of disability.

The respondent railway company sought dismissal on the basis that its operations fall under federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that although the respondent operates an intraprovincial short line railway, it is owned by a company that operates federally-regulated railways.

By operation of s. 88(3) of the Canada Transportation Act and s. 92(10)(c) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the respondent is declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.

The Application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and disability in the termination of her employment.

She also filed a claim under the Employment Standards Act, which was largely dismissed by an Employment Standards Officer and appealed to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of the OLRB proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding significant factual overlap regarding the reasons for termination and a risk of inconsistent findings if both proceedings ran concurrently.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and sex, as well as workplace harassment.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of a related grievance arbitration proceeding that raised the same allegations.

The applicant opposed the deferral and filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings, citing concerns that a potential witness was moving abroad.

The Tribunal granted the deferral request to avoid inconsistent decisions and denied the request to expedite, noting the applicant's failure to file required declarations and finding that the witness's relocation did not justify an expedited hearing.

A long‑term employee brought a motion for summary judgment following termination for alleged insubordination related to sales to a delinquent customer.

The employer asserted just cause and argued that the written employment agreement providing twelve months’ notice was unenforceable.

The court found that the employment agreement was valid and enforceable, noting that the employer prepared the agreement, signed it, and implemented its terms, including a salary increase tied to the contract.

Applying the contextual approach to just cause for dismissal, the court held the alleged conduct did not amount to wilful disobedience or insubordination justifying summary termination, particularly given the employee’s exemplary record and lack of documented warnings.

Summary judgment was granted and the employee was awarded damages equal to twelve months’ salary pursuant to the contractual notice provision.

The defendant employer brought a motion challenging the court’s jurisdiction over an employee’s claim for long‑term disability benefits.

The employee had been covered by a collective agreement incorporating a health benefits program administered by a third‑party administrator.

The court held that the essential character of the dispute concerned the interpretation and application of the collective agreement and its incorporated disability benefits plan.

Applying the exclusive arbitral jurisdiction doctrine under s. 48(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and the framework from Weber v Ontario Hydro, the court concluded that the matter must be resolved through the labour arbitration process.

The expiry of the collective agreement and the plant closure did not extinguish rights arising under the agreement.

The action against the employer was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a trial judge's order denying him costs after he was awarded $12,000 in a wrongful dismissal action.

The trial judge denied costs under Rule 57.05(1) because the award fell within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, which had increased to $25,000 during the litigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's exercise of discretion, noting the plaintiff's continuing obligation to assess the appropriate forum and the undue length of the trial caused by the plaintiff's unsuccessful pursuit of punitive damages.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a costs order denying him costs after he was awarded $12,000 in a wrongful dismissal trial.

The trial judge had denied costs under Rule 57.05(1) because the recovery was within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, which had increased to $25,000 after the action was commenced.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's exercise of discretion, noting the moving party's continuing obligation to assess the appropriate forum and the undue length of the trial caused by the unsuccessful pursuit of punitive damages.

Following a wrongful dismissal action in which the plaintiff recovered $12,514, the plaintiff sought costs exceeding $21,000.

The amount awarded fell well within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

The court considered Rule 57.05(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits a denial of costs where a plaintiff recovers an amount within the Small Claims Court jurisdiction.

The court held that the policy underlying the rule applied even though the action was commenced before the jurisdictional limit increased.

As the claim clearly could have been pursued in Small Claims Court and no exceptional circumstances justified Superior Court proceedings, the court declined to award costs.

The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for cause following a workplace altercation where he struck a co-worker.

The court applied a contextual approach and found the single incident of misconduct, which involved provocation and no prior disciplinary record, did not constitute just cause for dismissal.

The court also held that an employment contract limiting notice to statutory minimums was unenforceable for lack of consideration, as it was signed after the plaintiff had already commenced employment.

The plaintiff was awarded 4.5 months' pay in lieu of notice, totaling $12,514.00.

The applicant, a 62-year-old sales representative, alleged discrimination on the basis of age and disability after his employer suggested he retire and offered a voluntary retirement package.

The respondent argued the suggestion was precipitated by performance issues.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal found it could not conclude the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The application was permitted to continue in the Tribunal's process, and the applicant was directed to file additional allegations raised during the hearing in writing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment contrary to the Human Rights Code.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

Satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed (vegetarianism) and family status against a physician and the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

The physician had reported the applicant to the Society after suspecting his three-year-old child required medical treatment for rickets, which the parents were refusing.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The claim against the physician was barred by the statutory immunity for mandatory reporting under section 72(7) of the Child and Family Services Act, and there was no evidence linking the Society's child protection actions to any prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and colour by the Children's Aid Society and a child protection worker regarding the apprehension of his children.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in prior Ontario Court of Justice proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the Court's findings on a summary judgment motion, which concluded there was an overwhelming case that the children were at risk of sexual harm, were inconsistent with the applicant's allegations of racial discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding that the Court proceeding had appropriately dealt with its substance.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding it wrongfully dismissed the respondent employee.

The employer had terminated the employee alleging sexual harassment of co-workers.

The trial judge found the conduct was non-sexual, alcohol-induced harassment that warranted progressive discipline, not dismissal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on just cause, the exclusion of a deceased witness's hearsay statement, the modest Wallace extension, and the award for lost benefits.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the trade union violated its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by failing to pursue compensation for the period between her agreed reinstatement date and the date of the arbitration award.

The Board exercised its discretion not to inquire further into the application, finding that the union did not violate the Act by waiting for the arbitrator to issue his award, and noting that the applicant herself took no steps to return to work or contact the union during that period.

The application was dismissed.