6 total
Motion for permanent injunction enforcing non-competition and confidentiality clauses dismissed due to overly broad terms.
The plaintiff brought a motion for a permanent injunction to enforce non-competition and confidentiality clauses against two former employees and their new employer.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case for the non-competition breach because the businesses were not substantially similar and the clauses were overly broad and unenforceable.
Although there was a prima facie case of a minor confidentiality breach by one employee, the court found no irreparable harm and determined the balance of convenience favored the defendants.
Human rights applications dismissed for delay and absolute immunity of witnesses in judicial proceedings.
The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination by various respondents relating to his criminal proceedings, parole, and counselling services.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the applications should be dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the parole officer and the Crown on the basis of absolute immunity, as they arose from testimony and reports provided for a criminal sentencing hearing.
The remaining allegations against the municipality, police service, and a community organization were dismissed for delay, as the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for waiting between four and nine years to file the applications.
Termination allegation dismissed under s. 45.1 as a prior grievance settlement appropriately dealt with its substance.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on disability, including his termination from employment.
The respondent AIDS Network requested that the termination portion of the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a union grievance settlement had already dealt with the issue.
The Tribunal found that the grievance settlement, which reinstated the applicant, constituted a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the termination allegation.
The Tribunal dismissed the termination portion of the application, allowing the harassment allegations to proceed.
Interim requests for application amendment and document disclosure granted on consent; witness addition dismissed without prejudice.
The applicant requested to amend his human rights application to include a $50,000 monetary claim, sought disclosure of staff evaluations and van accident documents, and requested additions to the witness list.
The Tribunal granted the amendment and the disclosure of staff evaluations on consent.
The request for van accident documents was dismissed as the respondent had none.
The request to add witnesses was dismissed without prejudice due to lack of information.
Motion to strike allegations of employer support granted due to untimeliness and failure to provide particulars.
During a hearing for certification and an unfair labour practice application, the responding employer and the applicant union brought a motion to strike out certain allegations made by the intervenor union.
The intervenor had alleged employer support for the applicant union but failed to provide detailed particulars as directed by previous Board decisions.
The Board found the allegations to be untimely and lacking in the required particulars.
The Board also held that the reverse onus provision under section 96(5) of the Labour Relations Act did not apply to allegations of employer support.
The motion was granted, and the allegations relating to employer support were struck out.
Application for termination of bargaining rights dismissed after representation vote failed to reach majority opposition.
The applicants filed an application for termination of bargaining rights under section 63(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
A representation vote was held and the ballot box was initially sealed.
At the hearing, the intervenor and applicants moved to count the ballots, which the responding party opposed.
The Board directed the ballots be counted, finding no serious prejudice to the responding party.
As not more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the responding party, the application was dismissed.
