R. Ross Wells

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision declaring the applicant and Metro Waste Paper Recovery Inc. to be related employers under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant argued the Board erred by applying s. 1(4) without first determining the 'true' employer and by exercising its discretion without identifying labour relations mischief.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, fact-driven, and within its specialized expertise.

The Board properly identified that a single employer declaration would undermine collective bargaining rights and create an unviable bargaining structure.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that the respondent, a real estate sales agent who sold homes exclusively for the appellant for 18 years, was an employee entitled to 18 months' notice of termination.

The appellant argued the respondent was a dependent contractor.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the existence of an intermediate 'dependent contractor' category but upheld the trial judge's finding that the respondent was an employee based on the Sagaz/Belton factors.

The court also upheld the finding that the respondent was not required to mitigate her damages by accepting a temporary employment offer from the appellant, as the employment relationship had been irreparably damaged.

The employer appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of an arbitral award.

The board of arbitration had ruled that the employer's policy of random drug testing for safety-sensitive employees, absent reasonable cause, violated the collective agreement's requirement to treat employees with dignity and respect.

The Court of Appeal held that while the Divisional Court erred in applying the patent unreasonableness standard instead of reasonableness, the board's decision was reasonable.

The board did not err by referencing the 'Canadian model' of arbitral jurisprudence, nor did it improperly rely on facts outside the record or amend the collective agreement.

The appellants, former commercial insurance salespeople for the respondent, resigned and joined a competitor, subsequently soliciting clients from the respondent.

The respondent successfully sued for breach of a restrictive covenant at trial.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the clause was an unenforceable non-competition clause rather than a non-solicitation clause, as it contained no geographical limit and broadly prohibited conducting business.

The appeal was allowed and the trial judgment was set aside.

Mylex Ltd. appealed a trial judgment finding it liable in contract and tort for failing to meet delivery dates and providing poor quality ready-to-assemble furniture to Magnussen Furniture Inc. Magnussen cross-appealed the damages and costs awards.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge erred in finding an 'overall contract' existed, this did not affect the ultimate liability finding based on breached purchase orders and negligence.

The Court upheld the trial judge's assessment of damages, which limited lost profits to a two-year period due to contingencies, and affirmed the discretionary costs award.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

Imperial Oil Limited applied for judicial review of an arbitration board's decision that its random drug testing policy using buccal swabs violated the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitration board's interpretation of the collective agreement in light of established arbitral jurisprudence (the 'Canadian model') was not patently unreasonable.

The Court held that the board did not alter the collective agreement, did not rely on unsupported findings of fact, and reasonably interpreted the agreement's requirement to treat employees with respect and dignity without needing to apply the Human Rights Code.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's dismissal of his wrongful dismissal claim against Goodyear Canada Inc. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by focusing on the Employment Standards Act rather than the common law test for co-employer status.

Because Goodyear had effective control of the employer's business and employees during a 20-month option agreement period, it was a co-employer at common law.

The appeal was allowed, and Goodyear was ordered to pay the appellant 12 weeks' wages in lieu of notice, less a two-week credit for statutory payments.

The appellant, a beneficiary of an estate, sued the respondent bank seeking a declaration that a guarantee given to the bank by an estate company was invalid.

The guarantee was authorized by the appellant's uncle, who held a power of attorney for the appellant and was a co-executor.

The bank required the guarantee to secure a loan to the uncle's personal company.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the bank was not liable for knowing assistance because it lacked actual knowledge of the breach of trust, relying on a legal opinion letter.

The majority also held that the bank was not liable for knowing receipt, as it acted reasonably in the circumstances and had no duty to inquire further or require the appellant to obtain independent legal advice.

The appellants appealed a libel judgment arising from a press conference at which counsel publicly read and commented on contempt allegations against a Crown attorney that were later found to be untrue.

The Court held that the private defamation action did not constitute government action under s. 32 of the Charter, but confirmed that the common law must nonetheless develop consistently with Charter values.

The Court declined to adopt the American actual malice rule, holding that Canadian defamation law appropriately balances freedom of expression with the protection of reputation.

It further held that any qualified privilege attached to the occasion was defeated by the excessive, careless, and high‑handed dissemination of serious allegations.

The jury's awards of $300,000 general damages, $500,000 aggravated damages, and $800,000 punitive damages were upheld.

Appeals concerning whether labour relations at a provincially owned utility's nuclear generating stations were governed by provincial or federal labour legislation.

The majority held that Parliament's declaratory power under s. 92(10)(c) and s. 91(29) validly brought the nuclear facilities within exclusive federal jurisdiction, and that labour relations were integral to the operation and management of those declared works.

A majority also held that atomic energy is a matter of national concern under the peace, order and good government power, and that labour relations at the nuclear facilities formed part of that jurisdiction.

The argument that provincial authority over electrical generation under s. 92A(1)(c) displaced federal authority was rejected.

The appeals were dismissed and the Canada Labour Code was held to apply to employees employed on or in connection with the nuclear facilities.

The appellant employer was found by a three-member panel of the Ontario Labour Relations Board to have failed to bargain in good faith by not disclosing an impending plant closure.

Before the decision was finalized, the panel discussed the policy implications of the case at a full board meeting.

The appellant challenged the decision, arguing the full board meeting violated the rules of natural justice, specifically the principles of 'he who decides must hear' and 'audi alteram partem'.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that institutional consultation processes like full board meetings do not violate natural justice provided they are limited to policy discussions, facts are taken as given, no votes are taken, and parties are given an opportunity to respond if new grounds are raised.