Daniel J. Shields

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to each of the two responding party groups.

Following an order to merge two local unions into a larger local, the former locals attempted to amend their trust and building corporation documents to distribute assets pro rata to their members rather than transferring them to the merged local.

The court found these actions were taken without authorization, violated the union's constitution, and constituted a breach of fiduciary duty by the trustees and directors.

The court declared the amendments null and void, imposed a constructive trust, and ordered the assets transferred to the merged local.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order staying an action for damages for conspiracy to injure.

The motion judge found that the essence of the dispute was an unfair labour practice under section 76 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that the Labour Relations Board therefore had exclusive jurisdiction.

The appellants argued that the essence of their claim was conspiracy to injure, with labour relations matters being merely incidental.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that an examination of the statement of claim did not support the appellants' characterization and that the tribunal would need to decide matters clearly within the Board's purview, such as the propriety of a grievance filed by the union.

The Plaintiff, David Bain, sought costs and pre-judgment interest following a successful wrongful dismissal trial against UBS Securities Canada Inc. and UBS Securities LLC, where he recovered over $2.5 million.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 factors and the principle of proportionality, fixed partial indemnity costs for the Plaintiff at $225,000 plus HST of $29,250 and disbursements of $15,000, totaling $269,250.

The court also determined that pre-judgment interest should be calculated on a lump sum basis, awarding $122,756.03, given the Defendants' failure to provide salary continuance or a bonus upon termination.

David Bain, a Managing Director, Head of Canadian M&A at UBS, was terminated without cause after 14 years of service.

He claimed damages for wrongful dismissal, including an extended notice period, unpaid bonuses for 2012 and a stub period in 2013, vacation pay, benefits, referral fees, and mitigation expenses.

The court found the appropriate notice period to be 18 months, determined that bonuses were an integral part of his compensation, and that UBS failed to exercise its discretion fairly in denying bonuses due to his termination.

The court awarded damages based on salary and bonuses, as well as other claimed expenses.

The action against UBS Securities LLC was dismissed.

The appellants, unionized masonry contractors, appealed an order staying their action against the respondents and denying injunctive relief.

The appellants sought to challenge the legality of a Memorandum of Agreement and collective agreements that prohibited independent contractor arrangements with individual bricklayers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the essential character of the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board and that the appellants had avenues within the labour relations regime to challenge the agreements.

Following a motion in which the defendants successfully obtained a stay of the civil action pending determination by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving parties sought substantial or partial indemnity costs, arguing they were entirely successful and had proceeded on an expedited timeline at the insistence of the responding parties.

The responding parties argued the amounts claimed exceeded reasonable expectations and that substantial indemnity costs were inappropriate because the motion concerned jurisdiction and did not determine substantive rights.

Applying the principles under s.131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that successful parties are generally entitled to costs but that the amount must be fair and reasonable.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to each group of moving parties.

Unionized masonry contractors commenced a civil action alleging that employer associations and construction unions conspired to prevent them from using independent operator payment arrangements with bricklayers through amendments to provincial collective agreements.

The plaintiffs sought declarations that the collective agreements and memorandum of agreement were unlawful, injunctive relief, and damages for economic torts.

The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action on the basis that the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Applying the framework from Weber v. Ontario Hydro, the court held that the essential character of the dispute concerned labour relations issues including the validity and scope of collective agreements and the relationship between employers and unionized workers.

Because those matters fall within the OLRB’s exclusive jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act, the court stayed the action and declined to consider the requested injunctive relief.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action against his employer and union for conspiracy and collusion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the essential character of the dispute arose from the collective agreement.

Applying the Weber principle and the Labour Relations Act, the court held it lacked jurisdiction over the claims.

The court noted the appellant's proper recourse was to file an unfair representation complaint with the labour board.

The union appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of an arbitrator's award.

The arbitrator had dismissed a grievance claiming a temporarily laid-off unionized employee was entitled to termination pay and an election regarding recall rights under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The Court of Appeal held that the proper standard of review was patent unreasonableness, not reasonableness.

The Court found the arbitrator's interpretation of s. 56(2)(c) of the Act—that a standard seniority recall clause extended the temporary lay-off and deferred termination pay entitlement—was patently unreasonable because it undermined the purpose of the statutory election process.

The appeal was allowed and the arbitrator's award was quashed.