Lisa Marion Bolton

The applicant employer sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions: a default decision finding it violated a collective agreement and awarding damages, and a decision denying reconsideration.

The employer had failed to participate in a related jurisdictional dispute or file a timely response to the grievance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decisions were neither procedurally unfair nor unreasonable, as the employer had ample opportunity to participate but chose not to do so until the eve of the damages hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding an application for certification.

The respondents raised a preliminary issue that the application was premature because the applicant had not sought reconsideration by the Board under section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the conflicting Board decisions raised important policy issues regarding the interpretation of its home statute, and that reconsideration offered an adequate alternative remedy.

The application for judicial review was dismissed as premature.

This decision addresses costs arising from a Rule 21 motion to strike a statement of claim based on a limitations defence, and an associated refusals motion.

The plaintiff, Kola Iluyomade, was technically successful on the Rule 21 motion, which was dismissed without prejudice to the defendants reasserting the limitations defence later.

Both parties sought costs; the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, while the defendants sought partial indemnity costs for wasted efforts and the refusals motion.

The court found good reason to depart from the normal rule that the successful party is entitled to costs, citing the plaintiff's "pyrrhic victory" on the Rule 21 motion, divided success on the refusals motion, and the non-productive nature of the procedural skirmishes.

The court also deemed the plaintiff's Rule 49 offer to settle "hollow." Ultimately, the court ordered no costs, leaving each party to bear their own.

The plaintiff, a former employee of the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC), sued TCHC, several individual TCHC employees, the City of Toronto, and the City Ombudsman for wrongful dismissal and intentional infliction of mental suffering following an investigation into TCHC's eviction practices.

The Ombudsman Defendants and the individual TCHC Defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim.

The court granted the Ombudsman Defendants' motion, finding the claim against them was an abuse of process and barred by absolute privilege under the City of Toronto Act.

The court dismissed the individual TCHC Defendants' motion, finding it was arguable that the limitation period for the intentional infliction of mental suffering claim did not begin to run until the plaintiff was dismissed, as a proceeding would not have been an appropriate remedy before that time.

The applicant, Toronto Community Housing Corporation, sought judicial review of a grievance arbitration award that reinstated an employee who had been dismissed for cause.

The employee, a Tenant Services Coordinator, was alleged to have improperly sublet his unit and kept a rent payment.

The arbitrator found insufficient evidence of misconduct and reinstated him.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable, noting she ignored or improperly discounted evidence, including a rent receipt and written statements, and failed to assess credibility.

The Court quashed the award and remitted the matter for a rehearing before a different arbitrator.

The applicant employer brought a motion for an interim stay of a grievance arbitration award that reinstated an employee who had been dismissed for allegedly subletting his rental unit improperly.

The court determined that the applicable test for staying a labour arbitration award requires the moving party to establish a strong prima facie case, rather than merely a serious issue to be tried.

The court found the employer failed to meet this threshold because it had called no direct evidence at the arbitration to challenge the employee's testimony.

The motion for a stay was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent union.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of an action alleging breach of an employment contract, breach of fiduciary duty, wrongful resignation, and intentional interference with economic relations after a senior employee left to join a competitor.

The court found that the record contained extensive contested evidence, numerous factual disputes, and significant credibility issues relating to the scope of contractual obligations, alleged non-solicitation duties, and the conduct of the parties after resignation.

Applying the principles governing summary judgment, the court concluded that the issues required a full trial to properly assess the evidence and competing theories of liability.

The motion was therefore dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the responding party.

The appellant bailiff appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for selling the respondent's tools and materials without notice under the Repair and Storage Liens Act after locking the respondent out of commercial premises for rent arrears.

The respondent cross-appealed, seeking damages based on full replacement cost rather than actual value.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings on liability, the measure of damages, or the determination that the claim was not statute-barred.

Amertek Inc. sued the Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC) after losing money on a subcontract to supply fire crash trucks to the U.S. Army.

The trial judge found CCC liable for deceit, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, awarding disgorgement of a re-procurement penalty CCC avoided.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned the trial decision, finding palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's conclusions.

The Court held that CCC's statements about the contract's profitability were not false when made, Amertek did not rely on them, the relationship was purely commercial rather than fiduciary, and there was no breach of contract or unjust enrichment.

The appeal was allowed and Amertek's action was dismissed.