Michelle Shelly Henry

The appellant, Mounir Nader, appealed the dismissal of his claim for damages related to the early termination of his secondment agreement with Ontario Health and University Health Network (UHN).

He sought payment for the remaining term of the secondment, 12 months' severance, and a discretionary annual performance-based bonus.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the secondment agreement was not an employment agreement and that the appellant was only entitled to 12 months' severance under his employment agreement, not additional payment for the secondment term.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred in denying the performance-based bonus, concluding it was an integral part of compensation and should be awarded for the severance period.

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant hospital network and subsequently seconded to a provincial health agency.

The secondment was terminated early, and the plaintiff's employment was terminated without cause.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the secondment agreement was a fixed-term employment contract entitling him to compensation for the balance of the term, plus 12 months' severance under his original employment agreement.

The court dismissed this claim, finding the secondment agreement was not an employment contract and the plaintiff remained an employee of the hospital network subject to the 12-month termination provision.

The court awarded the plaintiff a $5,000 health care spending account but dismissed his claim for a performance bonus.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of two arbitration decisions that allowed a disabled employee to elect to receive severance pay under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator found that the employee, who could no longer perform his job due to a workplace injury, was entitled to elect severance because no other job had been offered to him, meaning no job was 'available'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and her conclusion that a job must be offered to be considered available were reasonable.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on colour, ethnic origin, and race.

A summary hearing was scheduled to address whether the application should be dismissed for delay or lack of reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing after her adjournment request was denied.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The plaintiff brought a motion to validate service of a Statement of Claim for wrongful dismissal that was improperly served by facsimile transmission in 2013, or alternatively to extend the time for service.

The plaintiff's former solicitors had failed to properly serve the claim and took no steps to advance the litigation for several years.

The court found that the defendant had likely received the improperly served claim and was aware of the impending litigation.

Concluding that the defendant would not suffer prejudice caused by the delay and that solicitor negligence is not a reason to refuse an extension, the court validated the service by facsimile transmission.

The applicant filed a Request for Order to amend his human rights application to add allegations of reprisal, including an allegation that he was terminated for seeking to enforce his rights under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that amending the application was the most fair, just, and expeditious manner of adjudicating the dispute, and issued procedural directions for the upcoming hearing.

The applicant, a South Asian man, called 911 to complain about dog owners protesting outside his home.

Upon arrival, police officers spoke with the dog owners, who alleged the applicant had threatened them and their dogs.

The applicant admitted to threatening to 'eat' a dog.

The officers arrested and charged the applicant with criminal offences, but did not arrest any dog owners.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the police had credible grounds to arrest the applicant based on the complaints and his own admission, and the applicant failed to prove that his race was a factor in the officers' decision to arrest and charge him.

The defendant moved to strike a self-represented plaintiff's wrongful dismissal claim for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action and on limitation grounds.

The court held the pleading was vague, uncertain, and failed to identify the essential elements of any recognizable breach of contract or wrongful dismissal claim.

Applying ss. 4 and 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002, the court further held that any claim arising from the alleged failure to contact the plaintiff after re-hiring was discovered in 2010 and the 2014 action was therefore statute-barred.

The motion was granted and the action dismissed with fixed costs.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The union, OECTA, was granted intervenor status and sought to participate in the merits phase of the hearing to protect its reputation against allegations of collusion, despite taking no position on the merits.

The Tribunal denied the union's request to call evidence and cross-examine during the merits phase, finding it would likely cause delay and disruption and that the union's participation would not assist in determining the merits.

The union's participation was limited to the remedy phase.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because it had recently retained new counsel following the wind-down of another law firm.

The applicant opposed the request, noting the hearing was still five weeks away.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that a change of counsel is not generally considered an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment, and that new counsel had sufficient time to prepare for the straightforward hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, ancestry, ethnic origin, place of origin, age, and reprisal, following the termination of her employment.

The respondent claimed the termination was due to funding cuts.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations, if proven, could establish a connection to the Code, and therefore declined to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal also removed one personal respondent and declined to add another, noting the corporate respondent accepted full liability for their actions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, claiming the respondents delayed providing his HIV test results to his family physician and disclosed his HIV status to his employer.

A summary hearing was held to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no evidence linking the respondents' actions to his alleged disability.

Furthermore, the applicant's test results were negative and he had never been diagnosed with HIV.

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

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of a duty of fair representation complaint filed by the applicant with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The applicant did not file a response to the request.

Given the significant overlap between the proceedings, the advanced stage of the OLRB matter, and the lack of objection from the applicant, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application pending the completion of the OLRB process.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination and harassment in employment based on disability.

The matter was deferred pending the outcome of a union grievance arbitration, which ultimately awarded the applicant damages for lost income and injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect due to the employer's failure to accommodate.

The respondents sought to dismiss the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing the substance had been appropriately dealt with at arbitration.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the arbitrator had considered the totality of the events and their impact on the applicant.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant's remaining allegations regarding earlier events were untimely and not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The respondent sought early dismissal of portions of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the unpaid wages allegation under section 45.1 of the Code, finding it had been appropriately dealt with by an Employment Standards Officer.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal allegation, as the alleged reprisal stemmed from enforcing rights under the Employment Standards Act rather than the Code.

The remaining allegations of discrimination were permitted to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment against the respondents.

She subsequently requested an order to add Loblaws Inc. as a respondent, arguing that Loblaws was responsible for the selection process for a training program from which she was rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to allege facts that, if proven, could support a finding that Loblaws violated her rights under the Code, as there was no allegation that Loblaws' refusal to select her was based on her sex.