10 total
Employer's appeal of LTD benefits award dismissed, but unpleaded punitive damages award set aside.
The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent former employee damages for lost long-term disability (LTD) benefits and punitive damages following a wrongful dismissal.
The respondent had been diagnosed with cancer after finding alternate employment and claimed he would have been entitled to LTD benefits under the appellant's plan.
The Court of Appeal upheld the LTD benefits award, finding sufficient medical and vocational evidence that the respondent was totally disabled and incapable of working, thus negating any failure to mitigate.
However, the Court set aside the $15,000 punitive damages award because it had not been pleaded or sought at trial.
Stay of proceedings pending judicial review denied despite consent of all parties to avoid delay.
The respondents requested a stay of proceedings before the Board of Inquiry pending the outcome of a judicial review application concerning a previous interim decision that refused to maintain a verbatim audio record of the hearing.
The complainant and the Commission consented to the stay.
The adjudicator refused the stay, finding that the balance of convenience favoured continuing the proceeding to avoid further delay, and noting that the respondents could hire a court reporter at their own expense.
The adjudicator also granted in part a request to adjourn several hearing days due to confusion over a scheduling letter.
Employer not permitted to amend bargaining unit description after statutory deadline and vote arrangements.
The Practical Nurses Federation of Ontario applied for certification to represent practical nurses employed by the responding party.
The responding party filed a timely response proposing a slightly different bargaining unit, and the Board ordered a representation vote based on the application and response.
After the vote was ordered, the responding party sought to amend its response to propose an 'all employee' bargaining unit.
The Board held that the responding party was bound by its original response, as allowing an amendment after the statutory deadline and after vote arrangements were made would prejudice the applicant and undermine the expedited certification process.
A certificate was issued to the applicant.
Hearing bifurcated to determine discrimination before damages; requests for transcripts and immediate disclosure of business records denied.
The adjudicator addressed three preliminary issues in a human rights complaint.
The complaint was amended on consent to remove allegations of discrimination based on family status.
The adjudicator denied the respondents' request to record the proceedings and provide transcripts, finding no statutory obligation to do so absent a request for accommodation.
Finally, the adjudicator deferred the respondents' request for disclosure of the complainant's husband's business records, which were sought to assess mitigation efforts.
The adjudicator ordered the hearing bifurcated, with the issue of discrimination to be determined before addressing damages and mitigation.
Motion for costs denied; Board lacks jurisdiction to award costs where complaint not dismissed on merits.
Following a preliminary decision that the Board of Inquiry lacked jurisdiction to hear the human rights complaints due to the Commission's failure to fulfill a condition precedent, the respondent Four Star Variety brought a motion for costs under s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code.
The majority of the Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to award costs because the complaints were not 'dismissed' within the strict meaning of the Code.
The motion for costs was denied.
A dissenting member would have found jurisdiction to award costs but denied them on the basis that the respondent suffered no undue hardship, as its legal fees were paid by a third party.
Board of Inquiry lacks jurisdiction where Commission fails to fulfill statutory duty to attempt settlement.
The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss human rights complaints regarding the display and sale of pornographic magazines in convenience stores.
The primary motion argued that the Board of Inquiry lacked jurisdiction because the Human Rights Commission failed to fulfill its statutory obligation to endeavour to effect a settlement before requesting the appointment of a board.
The majority of the Board agreed, finding that the Commission's failure to make satisfactory settlement efforts was a breach of a mandatory condition precedent, rendering the Board without jurisdiction to proceed.
The motions to dismiss on the merits and on constitutional grounds were dismissed as premature.
Motion for pre-hearing disclosure of human rights investigation and conciliation records dismissed as privileged and premature.
The respondents in a human rights complaint regarding the display of pornographic magazines brought a preliminary motion seeking full disclosure of the Commission's investigation notes, conciliation records, and other documents.
The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, holding that there is no pre-hearing discovery in human rights proceedings.
The respondents are only entitled to 'reasonable information' of the allegations against them under section 8 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
Furthermore, notes and correspondence relating to conciliation are privileged to encourage open settlement discussions.
Applicants granted amicus curiae intervener status to make submissions in sex discrimination inquiry.
In a human rights complaint alleging that the display and sale of pornographic magazines in convenience stores discriminates against women, 31 organizations applied for interested party status.
The Board of Inquiry held that the Human Rights Code does not permit adding the applicants as full parties.
However, the Board granted the applicants intervener status as amicus curiae, allowing them to make written submissions at the conclusion of the case, with the possibility of oral argument or calling evidence if deemed helpful and non-prejudicial.
Application to terminate bargaining rights dismissed as untimely due to prior appointment of conciliation officer.
The applicants filed an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.
The union argued the application was untimely because a conciliation officer had already been appointed following the union's notice to bargain.
The applicants argued that the union failed to give notice of the conciliation appointment and that the statutory time limits violated their freedom of association under the Charter.
The Board dismissed the application as untimely under section 61(2) of the Labour Relations Act, finding that the union had no obligation to notify employees of the conciliation appointment and that the Charter argument could not be entertained without notice to the Attorneys General.
Restrictive covenant in sale of business upheld as reasonable and enforceable against former owners.
The appellants sold their manufacturing business to the respondents and signed a restrictive covenant prohibiting them from competing for five years after the sale or after terminating their employment, whichever was later.
Nine years later, the appellants resigned and started a competing business.
The respondents sued for breach of the covenant.
The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Court of Appeal's decision that the covenant was clear, unambiguous, and enforceable.
The Court found the covenant reasonable between the parties and in the public interest, rejecting the appellants' arguments that the respondents' alleged monopolistic practices rendered the covenant void.
