6 total
Summary judgment motion dismissed; employment contract unambiguously excluded assigned clients from deferred compensation pool.
The plaintiff, a retired insurance producer, brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that both 'assigned' and 'developed' clients should be included in the calculation of his deferred compensation pool under his employment contract.
The defendant employer argued that only 'developed' clients were included.
The court found no ambiguity in the employment contract, concluding that the clear language of the agreement allocated only 'new customers' (developed clients) to the deferred compensation pool.
The plaintiff's motion and claim were dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; HRTO decision ordering reinstatement of disabled employee after failure to accommodate upheld.
The appellant School Board appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's finding that it failed to accommodate the respondent employee's disability and ordering her reinstatement.
The employee had developed a psychiatric impairment due to the stress of her position and was unable to return to her previous role.
The Tribunal found that the School Board failed to accommodate her by not placing her in available alternative positions.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decisions on both liability and the remedy of reinstatement were reasonable and entitled to deference.
Motion to amend written reasons for clerical errors dismissed due to pending appeal.
The respondent, Sharon Fair, brought a motion in writing to amend the Divisional Court's earlier written reasons, alleging clerical errors.
The applicant school board opposed the motion.
The court noted that the applicant had already obtained leave to appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeal.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that even if it had jurisdiction to amend its reasons, it would be unseemly to do so while an appeal was pending, and that justice would be better served by leaving the determination of any errors to the Court of Appeal.
Judicial review of HRTO decision ordering reinstatement for failure to accommodate disability dismissed.
The applicant school board sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions finding it discriminated against an employee by failing to accommodate her disability and ordering her reinstatement with damages.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decisions on liability and remedy were reasonable and amply supported by the evidence.
The Court also rejected the applicant's arguments regarding procedural fairness and reasonable apprehension of bias.
Tribunal orders reinstatement and extensive financial compensation, including $30,000 for injury to dignity, for discriminatory termination.
Following a finding that the respondent school board discriminated against the applicant by failing to accommodate her disability and terminating her employment, the Tribunal determined the appropriate remedy.
The Tribunal ordered the respondent to reinstate the applicant to a suitable alternative position, finding that the passage of time did not render the employment relationship unviable.
The respondent was also ordered to pay lost wages from June 2003 to the date of reinstatement, make pension and benefit adjustments, and pay $30,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
A motion by the respondent for the adjudicator to recuse herself for reasonable apprehension of bias was dismissed.
Employer discriminated by failing to accommodate disabled employee in an alternative position and terminating employment.
The applicant, a former supervisor of asbestos removal, developed a mental disability (anxiety, depression, PTSD) due to the stress and potential personal liability associated with her position.
After a period of disability leave, she sought to return to work in an alternative position that did not carry the same level of health and safety liability.
The respondent school board failed to actively canvass available alternative positions, refused to meet with her vocational rehabilitation consultant, and ultimately terminated her employment upon receiving a medical report confirming she could not return to her pre-absence position.
The Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the applicant by failing to fulfill its duty to accommodate her disability to the point of undue hardship.
