Michael Comartin

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions finding she breached the confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses of a settlement agreement by posting about her human rights complaint on LinkedIn.

The Tribunal had ordered the applicant to repay the full settlement amount as liquidated damages and granted an anonymization order protecting the respondents' identities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of the settlement agreement, its enforcement of the liquidated damages clause, and its decision to grant anonymization were all reasonable.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision to certify a union for a bargaining unit of employees at a specific hotel location.

The employer argued the bargaining unit was inappropriate due to employee interchange across multiple locations and that the Board denied procedural fairness by excluding certain casual employees without an oral hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's determination of the bargaining unit and employee status was reasonable and fell within its core expertise.

The Court also found no denial of procedural fairness, as the Board provided ample opportunity for written submissions.

The applicant employer sought a stay of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying the respondent union as the exclusive bargaining agent for a group of its employees, pending judicial review.

The employer argued it would suffer irreparable harm by being forced to choose between pursuing judicial review or complying with its obligation to bargain in good faith, and by expending unrecoverable resources on collective bargaining.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the employer could bargain in good faith while reserving its rights pending judicial review, and that mutual, unremarkable process costs do not constitute irreparable harm.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision granting workers' compensation benefits to an off-duty paramedic.

The paramedic injured his bicep while assisting on-duty paramedics with a medical emergency at a music festival.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that WSIAT reasonably applied the 'place, time and activity' criteria from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board's policy to conclude the injury occurred in the course of employment.

A long‑term employee brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action after nearly 39 years of service.

The court determined the employee’s position at termination remained a middle‑management role despite internal restructuring.

Applying the Bardal factors, including the employee’s age, lengthy service, and managerial character of employment, the court fixed the reasonable notice period at 24 months.

The employer failed to establish that the employee had not made reasonable mitigation efforts.

However, the court held the employee was not entitled to further incentive payments under the employer’s short‑term incentive plan because the plan required active employment at the payout date.

Following a successful summary judgment motion by the plaintiffs in a wrongful dismissal action, the court addressed costs.

One defendant sought costs against the other defendant rather than the plaintiffs, arguing that the other party’s litigation position caused its involvement in the action.

The court rejected that position and held that no costs would be awarded for or against that defendant.

The court found the remaining defendant liable for the plaintiffs’ costs and determined that substantial indemnity costs were appropriate due to the defendant’s unfounded and strategic allegation of termination for cause, which unnecessarily complicated and lengthened the proceedings.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking pay in lieu of reasonable notice following termination of a consulting relationship related to the establishment of a Schedule 1 bank.

The defendant bank argued the individual plaintiff was never its employee but rather a consultant engaged through a consulting company.

The court held that, at minimum, the consultant functioned as a dependent contractor given his exclusive work for the bank, integration into its operations, and representation to regulators as a senior officer.

Applying principles from employment law regarding reasonable notice, the court determined that eight months’ notice was appropriate.

Summary judgment was granted awarding consulting fees equivalent to eight months’ compensation plus HST and contractual interest.

The appellant appealed an order enforcing an international arbitration award, arguing it was denied procedural fairness when the application proceeded in its absence.

The appellant had previously terminated its solicitors' retainer and indicated an intent to follow different channels.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding no adequate record to support the procedural fairness claim.

The court noted that the appropriate procedure to raise the issue is a motion to set aside the order under Rule 38.11 in the Superior Court.

The applicant, a branch of the United States Department of Defense, sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying a union to represent its civilian employees in Ontario.

The Board had found that the applicant was a separate agency of the foreign state, had waived sovereign immunity, and was engaged in commercial activity.

The Divisional Court quashed the certification, holding that the applicant was an integral part of the U.S. government, had not waived its immunity, and was engaged in sovereign military support activities rather than commercial activities.