Malcolm MacKillop

The applicants, a minority shareholder and its principal, sought an oppression remedy against the majority shareholder and his holding company in a family-owned transportation business.

The court found that the majority shareholder unfairly disregarded the applicants' interests by excluding the individual applicant from management, terminating his employment, paying excessive compensation to himself and his spouse, and improperly deducting expenses from the minority shareholder's dividends.

The court ordered the respondents to purchase the minority shares for $1,592,000 based on a February 2019 valuation and to pay $80,902.67 in compensation for unpaid dividends.

The defendant, Teva Canada Limited, brought an unopposed motion to transfer a wrongful termination action from the Central South Region (Hamilton) to the Toronto Region.

The court applied Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering factors such as where the events giving rise to the claim occurred, where damages were sustained, and the convenience of parties and witnesses.

Finding no connection to Hamilton other than the plaintiff's counsel, and a substantial connection to Toronto (defendant's head office, place of work, and termination), the court granted the transfer, reserving costs to the trial judge.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action.

The appellant was employed as a production supervisor and was terminated for cause after approximately 19.5 years of continuous employment.

The termination was based on his allowing 1,500 defective camshafts with roping marks to be processed during his shift and subsequently lying about the incident.

The trial judge found that the appellant's failure to supervise, combined with his dishonesty, constituted just cause for termination.

The appellant argued the trial judge reversed the onus of proof and demonstrated bias.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in the application of the just cause test and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The defendants appealed a master's order compelling answers and document production arising from an examination for discovery in a commercial dispute involving alleged misuse of confidential information and solicitation of a former employer’s client.

The defendants argued the production order was based on unsubstantiated pleadings, speculation regarding misuse of confidential information, and the discredited doctrine of inevitable disclosure.

The court held that relevance for discovery is determined by the pleadings and that the allegations in the statement of claim sufficiently grounded the requested discovery.

The master properly exercised discretion in balancing proportionality and determining that the information sought was relevant.

The appeal was dismissed.

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

The applicant had been off work on long-term disability for approximately ten years.

He alleged discrimination related to the employer's purported sponsorship of a Gay Pride parade, failure to accommodate his return to work, and termination of his employment.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the employer's sponsorship of an event did not constitute discrimination in services or employment, and that the employer did not fail to accommodate the applicant given his admission that he was incapable of returning to work.

The plaintiff brought a discovery motion seeking an order compelling a former employee to answer refused questions and produce documents relating to services provided to a former client after joining a competitor.

The claim alleged breach of confidence and misuse of confidential information following the departure of senior employees who subsequently serviced the same client at the competing firm.

The court applied the relevance principles governing examinations for discovery under Rules 30.03 and 31.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and considered proportionality under Rule 29.2.03.

The court found the requests were not a fishing expedition because the pleadings contained specific allegations and there was circumstantial evidence supporting the line of inquiry.

The refused questions were ordered to be answered and related documents produced, subject to redaction of irrelevant commercially sensitive information.

Following a successful appeal by the respondents, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondents sought partial indemnity costs of $41,762.66, while the appellant sought substantial indemnity costs for a prior motion.

The Divisional Court ordered each party to bear its own costs of the motion and fixed the respondents' costs of the appeal at $20,000, finding the amount claimed to be beyond what was fair and reasonable.

The appellant was dismissed without cause from his employment as a senior vice-president and part-owner of the respondent company.

The trial judge awarded 5 months' pay in lieu of notice and fixed the share repurchase trigger date at the end of the notice period.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal increased the notice period to 9 months, finding the trial judge overemphasized short service and underemphasized the character of employment and availability of similar employment.

The Court also allowed the cross-appeal, holding that the share repurchase trigger date was the date of termination, not the end of the notice period.

Finally, the Court adjusted the trial costs order, finding that a second settlement offer revoked the first.

The applicant filed a reprisal complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, alleging her employment was terminated because she refused unsafe work.

The applicant had refused to print invoices, claiming that the stress caused by interpersonal conflicts with coworkers over the use of a shared printer endangered her health.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that stress from interpersonal conflict does not constitute a 'physical hazard' as required by section 43 of the Act.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that the applicant did not genuinely believe her health and safety were in danger, but rather used the work refusal to force the employer to resolve the printer situation.

The union filed an application for certification.

The parties subsequently entered into Minutes of Settlement to resolve a status dispute regarding a number of employees.

Pursuant to the settlement, the Board granted the union leave to withdraw the application, imposed a one-year certification bar against the union, and ordered the employer to pay $40,000 to the union for costs incurred in advancing the application.

The applicant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer contravened section 67 of the Labour Relations Act by issuing a one-day suspension.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to inquire into the complaint, finding that the dispute primarily concerned work practices and regulations rather than the exercise of statutory rights.

Noting that the parties had an established collective bargaining relationship and that an arbitrator had broader jurisdiction to resolve the issues under the collective agreement, the Board deferred the matter to arbitration and adjourned the application sine die.