Mark Andrew Mendl

The respondents requested a summary hearing, the removal of an individual respondent, and a deferral to an ongoing Landlord and Tenant Board proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the summary hearing request and the deferral request, finding no substantial overlap with the LTB matter concerning rental arrears.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondent, as the corporate respondent acknowledged liability for the individual's actions and there was no compelling reason to keep the individual as a party.

The applicants sought an order appointing an arbitrator under a Shareholder Purchase Agreement containing a mandatory arbitration clause following the purchase of a real estate brokerage.

The dispute concerned alleged improper bookkeeping and tax liabilities discovered after the closing of the transaction, which the applicants alleged breached the respondent’s representations, warranties, and indemnities.

The respondent argued that a prior mutual release resolving earlier litigation extinguished the agreement and barred the claims.

The court held that the claims were discovered after the release and were not covered by it, and that the dispute was at least arguable within the scope of the arbitration clause.

The court appointed an arbitrator and directed the dispute to arbitration.

The appellant municipality appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for malicious prosecution and awarding $550,000 in punitive damages to the respondent estate.

The deceased had been wrongfully dismissed from his position as a building inspector, after which the municipality withheld exculpatory evidence from the police, leading to criminal charges of which he was ultimately acquitted.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of malicious prosecution, concluding the municipality initiated the proceedings by withholding evidence.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on punitive damages in part, reducing the award to $450,000 because the trial judge failed to account for the punitive elements of the substantial compensatory damages and costs already awarded.

Following a direction from the Court of Appeal to reconsider liability for malicious prosecution, the court determined whether a municipality could be liable for initiating criminal proceedings against a former employee.

The court applied the four‑part test from Nelles v. Ontario and examined whether the municipality initiated the prosecution, lacked reasonable and probable grounds, acted with malice, and whether the proceedings terminated in favour of the plaintiff.

The court found the municipality withheld exculpatory information from police regarding missing municipal files and prior internal investigations, thereby undermining the independence of the police investigation and becoming the proximate cause of charges that resulted in an acquittal.

The court concluded the prosecution was pursued to justify the employee’s dismissal and shield the municipality from civil liability.

Liability for malicious prosecution was established, but damages were fixed at a nominal amount pursuant to agreement of counsel.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on perceived sexual orientation.

The respondents requested a summary dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the only allegation linked to a Code ground occurred in 2007, well outside the one-year limitation period, and the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The remaining allegations of ongoing harassment lacked any nexus to a protected ground.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process.

The applicant opposed the deferral due to concerns about delay.

The Tribunal found that the grievance was virtually identical to the subject matter of the application and that deferral was appropriate to avoid adjudicative duplication.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process.

The applicant, a probationary employee, alleged she was terminated because of a disability after she was involved in a serious motorcycle accident.

The respondent maintained that the decision to terminate her employment for poor performance was made prior to the accident.

The Tribunal found credible evidence, including a probationary review report and the hiring of a replacement, demonstrating that the decision to terminate the applicant was made before the accident occurred.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that the termination date was accelerated due to the accident.

The application was dismissed.

The employer appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding a labour arbitrator's award.

The arbitrator found that 23 unionized employees were on 'temporary layoff' and entitled to Supplemental Unemployment Benefits under the collective agreement, despite the employer initially deeming the layoffs permanent.

The Court of Appeal applied the newly released Dunsmuir framework, determining that the standard of review for a labour arbitrator interpreting a collective agreement is reasonableness.

The Court concluded that the arbitrator's decision was reasonable as it was based on the factual background, the terms of the SUB Plan, and relevant law.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant brought an action for constructive dismissal, alleging the employer unilaterally changed his working conditions and reduced his wages.

These events occurred after a union was certified but before a collective agreement was reached, triggering the statutory freeze period under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The employer successfully moved to strike the action on the basis that the Ontario Labour Relations Board had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, applying the Weber analysis to find that the essential character of the dispute was a breach of the statutory freeze, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision that 23 employees were eligible for Supplemental Unemployment Benefit (SUB) Plan payments.

The arbitrator found that a 'temporary lay-off' under the SUB Plan was equivalent to the period employees retained recall rights under the collective agreement.

Applying the pragmatic and functional approach, the Divisional Court determined the standard of review was patent unreasonableness.

The Court held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and SUB Plan was not patently unreasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.