Daniel R. McDonald

The appellant employee appealed the dismissal of his Small Claims Court action for wrongful dismissal.

The employee had refused to perform temporary duties in the shipping department unless he was paid the higher wage rate associated with that position.

The employer treated this as a resignation or, alternatively, just cause for termination due to insubordination.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the employer's request was reasonable and lawful based on company policy and past practice, and that the employee's repeated refusals constituted a repudiation of an essential condition of his employment contract.

The appeal was dismissed.

Ace Marmon appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his wrongful dismissal action against SanMar Canada.

Marmon claimed he was fired without cause, while SanMar asserted he resigned or was terminated for insubordination after refusing temporary shipping duties at his regular pay rate.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or law by the Deputy Judge.

The court upheld the finding that Marmon's refusal constituted repudiation of an essential employment condition and insubordination, justifying dismissal.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ruled on multiple requests for orders during proceedings.

The respondent Securitas sought production of minutes of settlement between the applicant and a former respondent, Pepsi.

The Tribunal ordered disclosure of the settlement quantum to prevent double recovery, applying an exception to settlement privilege.

The applicant's request to amend his application to significantly increase the damages claimed was denied due to delay and lack of material change in circumstances.

The applicant's requests for production of internal correspondence were granted in part regarding the respondent All Star Security's hiring process, but denied regarding Securitas and Pepsi for being overbroad or lacking arguable relevance.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision, arguing the Board made procedural errors by issuing a faulty Confirmation of Filing that did not accurately reflect the Minister's question.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature.

The court held that the applicants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, as they did not request the Board to reconsider its decision under s. 114 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, which would have allowed the Board to address the procedural errors and any resulting prejudice.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment alleging wrongful dismissal and breach of contract, arguing her employment was for a fixed term of one year.

The defendant contended it was an indefinite term.

The court found the employment contract, comprising an email and an attached agreement, clearly established a one-year fixed term.

Consequently, the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the unexpired term without mitigation.

The motion for summary judgment was granted.

The appellant employer appealed a trial decision finding it had constructively dismissed the respondent and awarding damages based on a 16-month notice period.

The employer argued the trial judge erred in taking judicial notice of the mining industry's cyclical nature, finding the respondent was not obliged to accept a recall position to mitigate, setting a 16-month notice period, and determining the termination date under the Employment Standards Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and that the respondent was constructively dismissed upon recall to a substantially different position.

The employer brought a motion for partial summary judgment dismissing a former employee’s claims for unpaid bonuses on the basis that the claims were statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court examined the employment agreement and the employer’s bonus practices, finding the process for awarding bonuses was unilateral, opaque, and not explained to the employee.

The court held that the evidence did not clearly establish that the employee knew or ought to have known he had a claim more than two years before commencing the action.

The employer’s failure to disclose its interpretation of the bonus provisions and relevant sales information could amount to fraudulent concealment preventing the limitation period from running.

The motion for partial summary judgment was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an Interim Decision that dismissed parts of her human rights application against her employer and co-workers due to delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate issues already decided and failed to provide new evidence or demonstrate that the Interim Decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

During the hearing process, the applicant was taken into custody and requested an indefinite abeyance of the proceedings pending his release.

The respondents opposed the request and sought dismissal of the application for delay, arguing prejudice to their right to a fair hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' request to dismiss the application, finding no breach of natural justice or actual prejudice established at this stage.

The Tribunal granted a three-month abeyance, directing the applicant to provide updates on his custody status and ability to attend, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment by co-workers in 2009, discriminatory comments by a manager in 2010, and a false complaint leading to her removal from a work site.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to address timeliness and reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to 2009 as untimely, finding the delay was not incurred in good faith despite the applicant's claims of mental health issues.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations against several individual respondents and the union for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The application was allowed to proceed only against the employer and one manager regarding the 2010 discriminatory comments.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of ethnic origin, disability, and creed.

The applicant also had an ongoing termination grievance filed by his union based on the same facts.

The respondents and the intervening union requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the grievance process.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the application and the grievance and deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The appellant construction trade unions challenged the constitutionality of s. 127.2 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, which allows a 'non-construction employer' to terminate collective agreements and bargaining rights in the construction industry.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the provision violated s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The Divisional Court reversed this decision.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's ruling, finding that s. 127.2 does not substantially interfere with the process of collective bargaining because employees of non-construction employers can still organize under the general provisions of the Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant requested that his physician be permitted to testify by teleconference at the hearing, citing travel distance and the financial impact of missing a day of practice.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing that the physician's evidence was central to the case and that in-person testimony was necessary to properly examine the witness on extensive medical documentation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that given the extensive and key nature of the proposed evidence and the need to review detailed medical documents, it would be impractical and inappropriate to conduct the examination by teleconference.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement resolving their dispute, with the arbitrator remaining seized of any implementation issues.

A dispute arose regarding the timing of the payment of a retiring allowance.

Following submissions and on consent of the parties, the arbitrator ordered that the retiring allowance be paid forthwith.

The applicant, a long-term employee, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of family status and multiple disabilities, failed to accommodate him, and ultimately terminated his employment due to his disabilities.

The respondents maintained that the applicant was terminated because he could not adapt to a modernized work environment and due to concerns about his work ethic and integrity.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant was treated differently due to his family status or disabilities, nor that the employer failed to accommodate any medically supported restrictions.

The Tribunal concluded that the termination was based on legitimate performance and integrity concerns, not on any Code-protected ground, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability approximately one year and eight months after the limitation period expired.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was waiting for his union to process a grievance related to the same events, and subsequently needed time to find a lawyer and the Tribunal's contact information.

The Tribunal found that waiting for the outcome of another legal proceeding does not constitute a valid explanation for delay, and that the applicant failed to act with due diligence.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

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

During the Case Resolution Conference, the respondents brought motions to dismiss the application for failure to establish a prima facie case, to remove the personal respondent, and to dismiss certain allegations for delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the motions, finding that the applicant had established a prima facie case of discrimination, that the personal respondent's removal was best addressed in closing submissions, and that the allegations fell within the one-year series of incidents provision.

The Tribunal issued case management directions for the continuation of the hearing.