Jonathan Cocker

The Appellants appealed a decision and order regarding contraventions of the Tires Regulation under the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Appellants requested a five-day hearing, which the Respondent opposed.

The Tribunal declined to schedule hearing dates without a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference and directed the parties to submit a Draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order enforcing the terms of a settlement agreement regarding the respondent's claim for amounts owed upon termination of employment.

The appellants argued the settlement should not be enforced due to the respondent's alleged post-termination breach of a non-compete clause.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the alleged breach was not part of the settlement and that a boilerplate preamble could not reasonably be interpreted to include it.

The plaintiff, a partner at the defendant accounting firm, was forced to retire after the firm's CEO decided to reduce the number of partners due to an economic downturn.

The firm's policy board subsequently voted to compel his resignation under a provision of the partnership agreement allowing expulsion in the best interests of the partnership.

The plaintiff sued for breach of contract.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, finding that the policy board did not genuinely determine the issue but merely rubber-stamped the CEO's predetermined decision.

The court held that the expulsion was invalid and awarded the plaintiff compensatory damages for lost profits and retirement benefits, as well as aggravated damages for reputational harm.

The plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action was subject to a status hearing to show cause why it should not be dismissed for delay under former Rule 48.14(13).

The plaintiff explained the delay was due to working abroad in remote locations and experiencing health issues.

The court accepted the explanation and found the defendants would suffer no non-compensable prejudice, as the delay was not particularly lengthy and the defendants had not advanced the claim themselves.

The action was allowed to continue.

The applicant, a Black woman employed as an assistant at a hair salon, alleged she was subjected to racial discrimination and harassment by her supervisor, including the use of 'ghetto' names and references to 'Kunta Kinte' and 'master'.

She also alleged her employment was terminated due to her race.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding the alleged comments to be inconsistent and unreliable, particularly given the lack of corroborating evidence and the context of discussions about popular culture.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that she was subjected to a course of vexatious comment or conduct, or that her termination for performance issues was discriminatory.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of the Environment's alleged failure to intervene and enforce an approved waste management plan under s. 27 of the Waste Diversion Act, 2002.

The applicant argued that changes to tendering criteria constituted a 'material change' requiring the Minister's approval.

The Divisional Court quashed the application, finding that the Minister has no statutory duty to intervene or supervise operational decisions, and that the decision of what constitutes a 'material change' is a policy-laden function beyond the court's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the completion of a grievance arbitration.

Following the dismissal of his grievance, the applicant failed to request the re-activation of his application within the 60-day time limit prescribed by Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, waiting approximately 13 months to do so.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not provide a good reason for the delay and that the respondent would suffer prejudice due to the passage of time.

The request to re-activate was denied and the application was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the application, the court considered the parties' written submissions on costs.

The court fixed the costs payable by the applicant to the respondent union at $6,000.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions certifying the respondent union and refusing reconsideration.

The employer argued the union fraudulently misrepresented the delivery date of its certification application, causing the employer's response to be deemed late.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's refusal to reconsider was reasonable because the employer had notice of the delivery date dispute prior to the initial decision and failed to raise it in a timely manner.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding her layoff while on medical leave and her subsequent reinstatement at a lower wage rate following a grievance arbitration award.

The respondent requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was dealt with in the arbitration.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the 2005 layoff was fully canvassed in the arbitration and the challenge to the 2006 reinstatement rate was essentially an impermissible collateral attack on the arbitrator's decision-making, which is not a 'service' under the Code.

The applicant sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order to pay termination pay against her former employer.

The employer terminated the applicant without notice, alleging she engaged in wilful misconduct by pushing another employee twice during a workplace altercation.

The applicant denied the allegations and claimed she was set up.

The Board found the employer's witnesses credible and concluded the applicant did push the co-worker.

Given a prior disciplinary suspension for pinching another employee, the Board held the applicant's actions constituted wilful misconduct under the Employment Standards Act, disentitling her to notice or pay in lieu thereof.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant employee sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order to pay for an allegedly unpaid bonus and overtime.

The parties settled the overtime claim during the hearing.

On the bonus claim, the applicant argued the employer's bonus plan, which factored in cash and merchandise shortages, violated the prohibition against set-offs in section 8 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the bonus plan merely established a formula for calculating the bonus pool, rather than making unlawful deductions from wages already owed to individual employees.

The grievor, a Human Resources Consultant, took a two-year leave of absence to avoid being declared surplus during a downsizing and to reach ten years of continuous service for retirement benefits.

During his leave, several vacancies arose and were filled through open competitions.

The grievor filed a grievance claiming he should have been considered for direct assignment to these positions or, alternatively, that the employer had a duty to inform him of the vacancies and his options.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor was not a surplus employee while on leave and therefore had no right to direct assignment.

The Board also found no breach of any duty to inform, as the grievor had made incorrect assumptions about his status and failed to maintain contact with the employer to seek advice.