Lisa Goodfellow

The plaintiff brought a motion to transfer the action from Ottawa to Toronto.

The court dismissed the motion without costs, noting that a prior order had already transferred the action to Toronto and there was no evidence the order had been set aside or varied.

Following a successful injunction motion, the Plaintiff, Ontario Graphite Ltd., sought substantial indemnity costs of $130,886.09.

The Defendants argued for costs to be reserved or in the cause.

The court found the Plaintiff achieved substantial success on the motion, which involved important issues.

Considering the extensive materials, the utility of the information for the ongoing action, and the Plaintiff's reasonable settlement efforts, the court awarded the Plaintiff $80,000.00 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, to be paid within 60 days.

This award is without prejudice to further submissions on costs at trial.

The plaintiff, a graphite mining company, sought an interlocutory injunction against two former senior executives and their new employer, a competing graphite company.

The plaintiff alleged the former employees breached their fiduciary duties, confidentiality obligations, and non-competition/non-solicitation agreements by surreptitiously securing employment with the competitor and usurping a corporate opportunity regarding a processing facility.

The court granted the injunction, finding a strong prima facie case of breach, irreparable harm due to the highly competitive nature of the industry and potential loss of first-to-market advantage, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The respondent sought to defer the human rights application pending the completion of related union grievance proceedings.

The applicant did not oppose the deferral.

The Tribunal noted that there was substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievances.

Relying on the principle that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights statutes, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation over a 12-year period.

The respondent sought to dismiss several allegations on the basis of delay and because some issues had been addressed through the union grievance process.

The Tribunal dismissed the older allegations as untimely but allowed the post-2010 allegations to proceed as a series of incidents.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations related to discipline that had been settled in the grievance process, finding it would be an abuse of process to relitigate them.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation regarding a 2012 layoff to proceed, as the union's withdrawal of that grievance did not constitute a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights claim.

The appellants appealed a decision regarding the interpretation of a management contract.

The appellants argued that the earliest the respondents could terminate the contract was if they failed to meet the 2002 budget, and thus they were entitled to termination pay.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that the contract was for a one-year term and was renewable only if the parties agreed on a sound business plan.

Since the parties could not agree on a plan, the contract was not renewed, and the respondents were not required to pay termination pay.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint.

After losing the initial representation vote, the union brought a motion alleging the employer breached the statutory freeze provisions under section 86(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The employer had advised employees of an existing benefit plan shortly before the vote, which the employees were previously unaware of.

The Board found that bringing the benefit plan to the employees' attention effectively altered their conditions of employment, violating the statutory freeze.

Consequently, the Board ordered a second representation vote pursuant to section 11 of the Act.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The parties resolved part of the matter through minutes of settlement prior to the hearing.

At the hearing, the parties entered into discussions with the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer and resolved the remaining issues.

The Board ordered the disbursement of funds held in trust in accordance with the settlement and terminated the matter.

The applicant union and responding party employer reached a settlement regarding a grievance.

The parties requested a consent order from the Board.

The Board issued a declaration that the responding party is and remains bound by the full terms and conditions of the collective agreement entered into on October 27, 1993.

The application was terminated.

The applicant union sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that several residential home building and land development companies were under common control or direction.

The Board found that while the companies were engaged in associated or related activities, they were not under common control or direction.

The common individual among the companies acted primarily as a passive investor in the non-union companies and did not exercise operational or labour relations control.

The application and the related grievance were dismissed.

The applicants, a superintendent couple, sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision not to issue an order against their former employer, a condominium corporation.

The applicants alleged they were terminated because the wife took maternity leave, contrary to the Employment Standards Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer successfully rebutted the presumption of reprisal, demonstrating that the terminations were motivated by a change in the board of directors, a new property management company, and a legitimate reorganization of building services.

The application was dismissed.