Michael Horvat

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding the termination of a union member for just cause.

The employer terminated the grievor after video surveillance showed him removing two rugs from the workplace without authorization.

The arbitrator rejected the grievor's explanation that he had bartered for the rugs with a co-worker, finding him complicit in the theft.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's factual findings and credibility assessments were reasonable and amply supported by the record.

The plaintiff, a former owner and vice-president of the defendant company, was terminated without cause 11 months into a three-year fixed-term employment agreement.

He brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal.

The court found the termination clause in the employment agreement violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000 by providing a lower standard for 'cause' than the statutory standard for willful misconduct, rendering the entire termination provision void.

The court awarded the plaintiff the balance of his fixed-term contract, totaling 23 months' salary plus benefits, and held that he had no duty to mitigate his damages.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award finding the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to order termination and severance pay against a related company and corporate directors following the employer's bankruptcy.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review.

The Court upheld the arbitrator's conclusion that he lacked jurisdiction to make orders against entities and individuals who were not parties to the collective agreement, noting that the related company was not a party and the Business Corporations Act requires a civil action to hold directors liable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The court issued a case management endorsement to schedule an application for judicial review of an arbitrator's decision.

The hearing was scheduled to proceed by ZOOM videoconference before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

The court provided detailed procedural directions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities, via an electronic drop box.

The plaintiff, an employment staffing agency, sought an interlocutory injunction against a former Director of Branch Operations and his new employer for alleged breaches of non-solicitation and confidentiality covenants.

The court found the Proprietary Information, Developments Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Agreement to be valid and binding, rejecting the argument of lack of fresh consideration as the agreement was a condition of employment and presented on the first day.

A strong prima facie case was established for the former employee's solicitation of a major client (Cisco) and misuse of proprietary information (knowledge of a former colleague's value to Cisco).

However, no strong prima facie case was found for solicitation of another client (Bank of Montréal) or employee inducement.

The court determined that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm from loss of goodwill and market share, which would be difficult to quantify in damages.

The balance of convenience favored granting the injunction.

The plaintiff, a long-serving senior accounting manager, alleged constructive dismissal after a merger-driven reorganization removed core payroll, budgeting, and accounts payable responsibilities and left her with an uncertain role.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s constructive dismissal framework, the court held that the employer had unilaterally and substantially altered essential terms of employment and had also, viewed cumulatively, evinced an intention no longer to be bound by the contract.

On damages, the court held that ESA termination and severance entitlements were payable and that mitigation income earned during the statutory entitlement period could not be deducted from the common law award.

The court also awarded relocation-related mitigation expenses, including sale, purchase, moving, and transitional costs, in the amount of $45,010.32, together with pre-judgment interest.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by his former employer and his union based on race, colour, ethnic origin, family status, and marital status.

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine whether the application against the union respondent should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to allege or point to any evidence linking the union's failure to advance his grievance to arbitration to any Code-protected ground.

The application against the union was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent breached a term of their minutes of settlement by failing to provide a letter of reference, instead providing an employment verification letter that omitted agreed-upon language.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's unilateral alteration of the letter's title, language, and content constituted a fundamental breach of the settlement.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide a redrafted letter complying with the settlement terms and awarded the applicant $1,000 in compensation for the resulting harm and frustration in her job search.

The applicant alleged that the respondent contravened a settlement agreement by failing to provide a positive letter of reference as required by the Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal found that the letter provided by the respondent was neutral rather than positive, and therefore breached the agreement.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide a positive letter of reference and awarded the applicant $1,000 in monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect resulting from the breach.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to anonymize the decision to preserve the confidentiality intended by the original settlement.

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 the trial judge's decision upholding her termination for just cause.

The employer had terminated the appellant after she submitted a claim for benefits under the employer's health insurance plan in the name of a 'phantom beneficiary'.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility findings or the conclusion that termination was a proportional response to the misconduct.

The applicant requested an order for the production of documents related to workplace investigations, electronic files, and vacation pay.

The respondent confirmed that no formal investigation occurred and provided the only existing meeting note, along with a summary of the applicant's vacation pay.

The Tribunal denied the request for further production, noting that the applicant could renew her request for specific vacation pay documents if necessary after reviewing the summary.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent failed to make a severance payment within the two-week timeframe specified in the Minutes of Settlement.

The respondent argued the delay occurred because the applicant requested reimbursement for medical receipts after the settlement was signed, which required him to remain on the payroll and delayed the severance processing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent informed the applicant of the delay and that the parties effectively amended the settlement agreement.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, creed, and family status against her employer, her union, and several individuals.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the allegations against the union and its representatives had a reasonable prospect of success.

Finding no evidence that the union's actions were based on discriminatory factors, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the union respondents.

The Tribunal also removed the individual employer respondents from the proceeding, as the corporate respondent accepted liability for their actions.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's requests for an interim remedy of severance pay and for premature production of documents.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent breached a settlement agreement.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled to address delay and the alleged contravention.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving proper notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, an employee with a disability resulting from workplace injuries, alleged discrimination on the basis of age and disability after her employer discontinued a temporary modified work arrangement and placed her on an unpaid medical leave.

The Tribunal dismissed the age discrimination claim for lack of evidence.

Regarding disability, the Tribunal found that the employer met both its procedural and substantive duty to accommodate.

The applicant was unable to perform the essential duties of her position, and the employer was not required to permanently bundle tasks or assign essential duties to other employees to create a new position.

An employee with 19 years of service brought a wrongful dismissal action after being terminated for cause for submitting falsified medical benefits claims and misrepresenting a fictitious dependent to the employer’s benefits insurer.

The employee argued the falsifications were intended only to draw attention to an administrative error in her benefits profile and also alleged discrimination and harassment related to a workplace injury.

The court found the employee knowingly falsified documents, misled the insurer, and failed to provide truthful explanations during the employer’s investigation.

Applying the contextual approach to dishonesty in employment, the court held the misconduct fundamentally breached the trust essential to the employment relationship, particularly given the employee’s supervisory role.

Claims for wrongful dismissal, bad faith damages, and breach of the Human Rights Code were dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, claiming he was denied a promotion because his employer feared he would file claims related to a previous workplace injury.

The application was filed approximately 20 months after the last alleged discriminatory event.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant's explanations for the delay, including his pursuit of a union grievance and mental health issues, did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, sexual orientation, and reprisal.

The applicant failed to comply with a Case Assessment Direction requiring him to provide a summary of his expected evidence.

At the hearing, the respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient particulars to support his allegations of reprisal or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation within the one-year time limit.

The Tribunal also found no reasonable prospect of success regarding the disability allegations, as the alleged threat of demotion occurred during discussions about modified duties and the applicant did not agree to a demotion.

The application was dismissed.