Landon Young

The appellant sued for wrongful dismissal and moved for summary judgment, arguing the termination clause in his employment contract was void for violating the Employment Standards Act.

The respondent conceded the 'Termination for Cause' provision was void but argued the 'Termination with Notice' provision was valid and severable.

The Court of Appeal held that employment agreements must be interpreted as a whole.

Because the 'for cause' provision violated the ESA, all termination provisions in the contract were rendered unenforceable, regardless of whether the employer relied on the illegal provision or if there was a severability clause.

The appeal was allowed.

The plaintiff employee sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without cause.

He argued that an illegal 'Termination for Cause' clause in his employment agreement rendered the entire termination provision, including the 'Termination of Employment with Notice' clause, void and unenforceable.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the 'Termination of Employment with Notice' clause was a stand-alone provision that complied with the Employment Standards Act and was enforceable on its own terms.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, the defendant's cross-motion was granted, and the action was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of sex and disability.

He claimed that co-workers harassed him for reporting their alleged illegal conduct, that a co-worker made sexually explicit comments to him, and that the employer failed to accommodate his nosebleed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the general harassment was not linked to a Code ground, the employer responded reasonably to the sexual harassment complaint, the comments did not create a poisoned work environment, and the nosebleed did not constitute a disability under the Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment because of disability.

The respondent railway company sought dismissal on the basis that its operations fall under federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that although the respondent operates an intraprovincial short line railway, it is owned by a company that operates federally-regulated railways.

By operation of s. 88(3) of the Canada Transportation Act and s. 92(10)(c) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the respondent is declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.

The Application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

She also filed a claim under the Employment Standards Act, which was largely dismissed by an Employment Standards Officer and appealed to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of the OLRB proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding significant factual overlap regarding the reasons for termination and a risk of inconsistent findings if both proceedings ran concurrently.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and sex, as well as workplace harassment.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of a related grievance arbitration proceeding that raised the same allegations.

The applicant opposed the deferral and filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings, citing concerns that a potential witness was moving abroad.

The Tribunal granted the deferral request to avoid inconsistent decisions and denied the request to expedite, noting the applicant's failure to file required declarations and finding that the witness's relocation did not justify an expedited hearing.

A long‑term employee brought a motion for summary judgment following termination for alleged insubordination related to sales to a delinquent customer.

The employer asserted just cause and argued that the written employment agreement providing twelve months’ notice was unenforceable.

The court found that the employment agreement was valid and enforceable, noting that the employer prepared the agreement, signed it, and implemented its terms, including a salary increase tied to the contract.

Applying the contextual approach to just cause for dismissal, the court held the alleged conduct did not amount to wilful disobedience or insubordination justifying summary termination, particularly given the employee’s exemplary record and lack of documented warnings.

Summary judgment was granted and the employee was awarded damages equal to twelve months’ salary pursuant to the contractual notice provision.

The defendant employer brought a motion challenging the court’s jurisdiction over an employee’s claim for long‑term disability benefits.

The employee had been covered by a collective agreement incorporating a health benefits program administered by a third‑party administrator.

The court held that the essential character of the dispute concerned the interpretation and application of the collective agreement and its incorporated disability benefits plan.

Applying the exclusive arbitral jurisdiction doctrine under s. 48(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and the framework from Weber v Ontario Hydro, the court concluded that the matter must be resolved through the labour arbitration process.

The expiry of the collective agreement and the plant closure did not extinguish rights arising under the agreement.

The action against the employer was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a 62-year-old sales representative, alleged discrimination on the basis of age and disability after his employer suggested he retire and offered a voluntary retirement package.

The respondent argued the suggestion was precipitated by performance issues.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal found it could not conclude the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The application was permitted to continue in the Tribunal's process, and the applicant was directed to file additional allegations raised during the hearing in writing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment contrary to the Human Rights Code.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

Satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged that the trade union violated its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by failing to pursue compensation for the period between her agreed reinstatement date and the date of the arbitration award.

The Board exercised its discretion not to inquire further into the application, finding that the union did not violate the Act by waiting for the arbitrator to issue his award, and noting that the applicant herself took no steps to return to work or contact the union during that period.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union, seeking compensation for a specific period following an arbitration award.

At the consultation hearing, the union undertook to remit the compensation issue back to the arbitrator, and the employer agreed not to object.

Based on these undertakings, the Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The applicant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to hold a formal vote of all members on whether to reopen the collective agreement following the announced closure of the employer's facility.

The union had held a meeting where a show of hands supported the leadership's position to allow the agreement to automatically renew.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that it had no authority to oversee the union's internal processes and that the union's decision not to reopen the agreement was reasonable and not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.