Gerald Griffiths

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing grievances filed on behalf of an employee who was placed on indefinite layoff.

The employee, a cleaner, was banned from the work site by the third-party property owner.

The employer, having no other work for the employee under the single-site collective agreement, laid her off rather than terminating her for just cause.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review from Vavilov and found that the arbitrator's decision was internally coherent and consistent with established labour jurisprudence regarding third-party site bans.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a General Foreman, sued for wrongful dismissal.

The court found he was hired under a fixed-term oral contract for the project's duration.

The defendant argued that the collective agreement, which provided for only four hours' notice, applied by custom, despite the General Foreman position not being covered by the agreement.

The court held that the burden was on the defendant to prove the termination clause was an implied term, which it failed to do.

Consequently, common law principles applied, entitling the plaintiff to damages for the unexpired term of the contract, mitigated by new employment.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee damages for wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge found no cause for termination and awarded damages based on a 19-month notice period, a 2015 bonus, aggravated damages of $25,000, and punitive damages of $100,000.

The appellant challenged each component of the award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact.

The court upheld the trial judge's reasoning on the notice period, bonus entitlement, aggravated damages based on the employer's threatening conduct and bad faith, and punitive damages reflecting the employer's strategic use of a counter-claim to intimidate the employee.

Following a successful 11-day trial where the plaintiff was awarded $604,627.09 and the defendant's $1.75 million counterclaim was dismissed, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $546,684.73.

The defendant argued for a reduced award of $200,000, claiming the plaintiff's costs were unreasonable.

The court awarded the plaintiff the full amount claimed, finding the costs proportionate to the result, justified by the defendant's unfounded fraud allegations, litigation misconduct (including refusal to admit facts, late disclosure, and causing trial delays), and the complexity introduced by the counterclaim.

The court also noted the plaintiff's counsel's superior preparedness compared to the defendant's.

Following a successful appeal by the plaintiff that varied the original summary judgment, the Court of Appeal referred the issue of costs for the original motion back to the motion judge.

The plaintiff sought $54,000 in costs, relying on an offer to settle that entitled him to substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The court reviewed the costs outline, found some entries excessive, and awarded the plaintiff all-inclusive costs of $42,000.

An employee terminated without just cause as President and General Manager of a division sought damages for wrongful dismissal, including reasonable notice, bonus for the year worked, bonus during the notice period, and benefits during the notice period.

The motion judge awarded 17 months' salary in lieu of notice and the 2016 bonus but denied claims for bonus and benefits during the notice period.

The Court of Appeal allowed the employee's appeal and dismissed the employer's cross-appeal, awarding damages for loss of bonus during the notice period and loss of benefits during the notice period, while upholding the 17-month notice period and 2016 bonus award.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $43,562.00 following a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendant argued for no costs due to divided success, or a reduced amount.

The court analyzed the six issues raised on the motion and found the plaintiff was the more successful party on the major issues of reasonable notice and the 2016 bonus.

Applying the principle of proportionality and considering what is fair and reasonable, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $20,000.00.

The plaintiff, a former President and General Manager, brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without cause.

The court granted summary judgment, awarding 17 months' reasonable notice.

The court also found the plaintiff was entitled to a pro-rated bonus for 2016 based on a historical average percentage, but dismissed claims for bonuses during the notice period, loss of benefits, and aggravated or punitive damages.

The court found the plaintiff had reasonably mitigated his damages and ordered a hybrid trust and accounting approach for the remainder of the notice period.

The plaintiff, a 59-year-old controller, was terminated after approximately 6.5 years of service.

He brought an action for wrongful dismissal, which proceeded by way of summary judgment.

The court applied the Bardal factors and awarded 10 months' reasonable notice.

The court also found the plaintiff was entitled to his 2016 discretionary bonus of $20,000, as the employer's unofficial policy of not paying bonuses to terminated employees was not applied fairly.

Claims for a 2017 bonus and loss of benefits were dismissed.

The court found the plaintiff had met his duty to mitigate.

The applicant, a transit operator, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of perceived disability.

Following a customer complaint about route delays, the respondent manager questioned the applicant about his need to use the washroom twice during a route and allegedly asked if he had a medical problem.

The Tribunal found that the manager's inquiries did not constitute adverse treatment and were not based on a perceived disability, but rather were reasonable questions in the context of investigating a customer complaint about delay.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because his counsel's spouse was expected to give birth around the hearing date.

The applicant opposed the request because it was made outside the 14-day window and due to personal commitments.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the impending birth constituted exceptional circumstances and noting that the delay would be short.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically regarding the respondent employer's failure to permit her to return to modified work.

The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking access to the applicant's personal health information contained in its internal Occupational Health and Claims Management file, arguing it could not file a complete Response without reviewing these documents.

The Tribunal found that exceptional circumstances justified the early production of these arguably relevant documents, as privacy legislation otherwise prevented the respondent from accessing them.

The Tribunal granted the respondent access to the relevant portions of the file and extended the time to file its Response by 35 days.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on race, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, family status, marital status, and reprisal, claiming he was subjected to derogatory comments about his background and forced to resign after a sexual harassment complaint was made against him.

After hearing the applicant's evidence, the respondents moved to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and reliability, noting inconsistencies and a lack of corroboration.

The Tribunal accepted the personal respondent's evidence that the applicant resigned on his own accord and dismissed the application.