Matthew Louis Ofelein Certosimo

The applicant sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision granting a union grievance regarding overtime pay for truck drivers.

The arbitrator found the employer did not qualify for the 60-hour overtime threshold under the highway transport exemption in O. Reg. 285/01 because it did not hold a valid CVOR under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Divisional Court held this interpretation was unreasonable, as the Regulation only required an operating licence under the repealed Truck Transportation Act and did not incorporate Highway Traffic Act requirements.

The application for judicial review was granted, the arbitrator's decision quashed, and the grievance dismissed.

The applicant, a Recruitment Specialist, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and pregnancy, and reprisal, after she was denied a significant salary increase and her employment was terminated shortly after she requested maternity leave.

The respondents maintained that the termination was due to a global budget reduction and restructuring, and that the applicant was selected for position elimination due to a decreased need for recruiters in her specific area and negative client feedback.

The Tribunal found that while the timing of the termination raised an inference of discrimination, the respondents successfully established a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for both the termination and the denial of the salary increase.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested the removal of three personal respondents from a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and reprisal.

The applicant consented to the removal of one personal respondent.

The Tribunal removed a second personal respondent who had no direct dealings with the applicant and whose alleged conduct did not justify an individual remedy.

However, the Tribunal maintained the applicant's former supervisor as a personal respondent because he was no longer employed by the corporate respondent, meaning the corporate respondent could not enforce any public interest remedies (such as human rights training) ordered against him if the application succeeded.

The defendant municipality brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s civil action for failure to comply with multiple interlocutory cost orders.

The plaintiff had failed for several years to pay costs awarded in prior proceedings, including $10,000 ordered following dismissal of an appeal and additional costs awarded on subsequent motions and appeals.

The court considered Rule 60.12 and subrule 57.03(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which authorize dismissal or other sanctions where a party fails to comply with interlocutory orders, including orders for payment of costs.

Finding that the plaintiff persistently refused to comply with cost orders, repeatedly delayed the action, and demonstrated no intention of satisfying the outstanding obligations, the court concluded that dismissal was the appropriate sanction.

The action was dismissed with costs.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing a grievance.

The grievance challenged the employer's practice of counting paid bereavement leave under the collective agreement towards the 10 days of unpaid personal emergency leave provided by section 50 of the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and the statute was reasonable and within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The appellant appealed interlocutory orders of a master staying his action for failure to pay a prior costs award and granting the respondent the right to seek dismissal if the costs remained unpaid.

The master had found the appellant deliberately refused to comply with a $10,000 costs order despite having the means to pay, and imposed a stay with additional costs after extensive motion proceedings.

On appeal, the court applied the deferential standard for reviewing a master’s interlocutory order and considered the sanctions available under Rule 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held there was no error in law, no misapprehension of evidence, and no improper exercise of discretion.

The appeal was dismissed and additional costs were awarded against the appellant.

The appellants appealed a trial decision granting the respondent an enhanced supplementary pension based on an additional 36 months of service.

The trial judge found that the parties had a prior oral agreement regarding the pension credit and were mutually mistaken in believing the written letter agreement reflected this intention.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision to rectify the agreement, finding that the appellants' attempt to take advantage of the mistake amounted to unfair dealing.

The Court also agreed that promissory estoppel prevented the appellants from denying the pension entitlement.

The plaintiff obtained a judgment for wrongful dismissal and unpaid commissions against his former employer, Westsun Show Systems Inc. Without attempting to execute the judgment, he brought a second action against the parent company's directors and officers, and former officers of the employer.

The trial judge found several directors liable for the wage debts and held a corporate representative personally liable for the costs of the first trial under the oppression remedy.

The Court of Appeal allowed the defendants' appeals, finding no duty on the corporate representative to disclose the lack of directors to an adverse party, and holding that the plaintiff failed to meet the strict statutory preconditions and limitation periods for directors' liability under the Manitoba Corporations Act.

The plaintiff's appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.