Employment and Labour Law - OCA

Two organizations, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce (OCC) and the Canadian Association of Counsel to Employers (CACE), brought motions for leave to intervene in an appeal concerning the enforceability of 'without cause' and 'with cause' termination provisions in an employment contract.

The respondent employee opposed the motions, arguing the appeal was a private dispute and intervention would cause duplication and imbalance.

The motion judge found the appeal raised broader public policy issues regarding employment standards legislation.

To avoid the appearance of unfairness and duplication, the court granted leave to intervene to the OCC but dismissed CACE's motion.

The appellant appealed an order striking his fresh as amended statement of claim against the individual respondents without leave to amend.

The claim alleged constructive dismissal, defamation, conspiracy, discrimination, and breach of Law Society rules following his resignation from the respondent law firm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the pleadings lacked material facts, failed to disclose viable causes of action, and could not be saved by further amendment.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding a former executive unpaid vacation pay, deferred bonuses, and the value of lost stock options.

The employer argued the motion judge erred in granting the relief, in finding that issue estoppel barred its just cause defence, and in determining the matter via summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's assessment of the evidence or his conclusion that the just cause defence was barred by issue estoppel following the earlier dismissal of the employer's counterclaim under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant, an investment advisor, received a recruitment bonus structured as a loan to be forgiven annually if revenue targets were met.

After the employer failed to credit bonuses for two years, the parties signed an Amended Note extending the repayment period and acknowledging the unpaid bonuses.

Following his termination, the respondent sued to enforce the Amended Note.

The appellant argued the Amended Note lacked fresh consideration.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the Amended Note was supported by valid consideration, including clarification of the parties' relationship, tax deferral benefits, and an extended interest-free period.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondents were injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by an employee of the appellant who was driving his personal vehicle to a remote job site.

The employee had taken a short detour for coffee when the collision occurred.

The motion judge granted summary judgment finding the employer vicariously liable under the first branch of the Salmond test, as the travel and detour were authorized acts within the course of employment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the employer's appeal, upholding the finding that the employee was authorized to drive to the job site and take a short break, making the employer vicariously liable.

The respondent in an appeal brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of execution on a trial judgment awarding him wrongful dismissal damages, pre-judgment interest, and costs.

The appellant had initially only appealed the portion of the judgment awarding damages for the value of shares, but later filed a supplementary notice of appeal challenging the wrongful dismissal damages.

The court applied the three-part test for lifting a stay, finding that the respondent demonstrated financial hardship, the appellant's financial condition was deteriorating, and the merits of the wrongful dismissal appeal were weak.

The motion to lift the stay was granted.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent employee six months' reasonable notice.

The employer argued the notice period was too long and that the motion judge failed to deduct mitigation income.

The Court of Appeal upheld the six-month notice period, finding it was not outside the acceptable range despite the motion judge's emphasis on the availability of comparable employment.

On consent, the court reduced the award by $1,634.62 to account for mitigation income earned during the notice period.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The appellant union appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding two arbitral awards.

The arbitrators had dismissed grievances alleging that the employer was required to reimburse employees for the new Ontario Health Premium under the collective agreements.

The Court of Appeal held that the Divisional Court correctly applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review to the arbitrators' interpretation of the collective agreements.

The Court further held that the arbitrators' conclusion—that the new premium was an add-on rather than a reversion to the pre-1990 individually paid premium system—was not patently unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant employer appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of an arbitral award.

The arbitrator had ruled that the employer was obligated under the collective agreement to reimburse employees for the newly enacted Ontario Health Premium.

The Court of Appeal held that the standard of review for the arbitrator's decision was patent unreasonableness, even though the arbitrator interpreted a statute of general application, because the statutory interpretation was secondary to interpreting the collective agreement.

The Court found the arbitrator's award was not patently unreasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The employer appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an arbitral award that required the employer to reimburse employees for the Ontario Health Premium under the collective agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Divisional Court correctly applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and relevant statutes was not patently unreasonable.

The appellant employer appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an arbitral award.

The arbitrator found that the employer was required under the collective agreement to pay the Ontario Health Premium on behalf of its employees.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness and that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable.

The court held that the reference to 'cost' in the agreement embraced the Ontario Health Premium, regardless of whether it represented 100 per cent of the cost of medicare.

The employer appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an arbitrator's award that required the employer to reimburse employees for the Ontario Health Premium under the collective agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the standard of review for the arbitrator's decision is patent unreasonableness.

The Court found the arbitrator's interpretation that the Ontario Health Premium was reasonably and materially similar to the former OHIP premium was not patently unreasonable, and rejected the argument that arbitral inconsistency warrants judicial intervention.

The appellants appealed an order granting an injunction against them for obstructing access to the respondent's work site during a labour dispute.

The appellants argued that a protocol had been agreed upon and successfully applied by the police.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's finding that no such agreement existed and that the union's imposition of a one-hour delay for entering vehicles amounted to unlawful obstruction.

The court upheld the trial judge's application of the R.J.R-MacDonald factors and dismissed the appeal, subject to removing the union as a named party.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding a binding employment agreement and awarding damages for wrongful dismissal, including Wallace damages.

The appellants argued the trial judge ignored evidence regarding the agreement and that the respondent failed to mitigate his damages by refusing a consulting arrangement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessments and concluding the respondent was not obliged to accept a demeaning consulting arrangement to mitigate his damages.

The corporate defendant appealed its convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, arguing it was not the 'employer' of a common carrier's driver who was injured on its site.

The Crown appealed the provincial offences appeal judge's decision to remit the defendant's s. 11(b) Charter delay motion for a rehearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal, finding it was an employer because it controlled the workplace.

The Court allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that a corporate defendant cannot rely on presumed prejudice for s. 11(b) delay and must show actual prejudice to its fair trial rights, which it failed to do.

The appellants appealed paragraph 4(d) of an order made by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the issue of jurisdiction, finding that the order was not made under section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Costs were fixed at $7,000 all inclusive.

The respondents, unionized employees, brought a tort action against their employer and a fellow employee alleging sexual harassment and sexual assault.

The employer moved to dismiss the action, arguing the dispute fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the collective agreement's arbitration procedure.

The motion judge struck the sexual harassment claims but allowed the sexual assault claims to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the essential character of the dispute was a workplace dispute regarding the employer's failure to provide a safe working environment.

Applying the Weber principle, the Court concluded that the arbitrator had exclusive jurisdiction over the entire dispute, including the allegations of sexual assault and the claims against the fellow employee.

The appeal was allowed and the statement of claim was struck out.

The appellant employer appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed an arbitration board's ruling.

The arbitration board had concluded it lacked jurisdiction under the collective agreement to award aggravated or punitive damages for an unjust dismissal grievance.

The Divisional Court held the standard of review was correctness and that the board erred.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the pragmatic and functional approach dictated a standard of patent unreasonableness due to strong privative clauses and the board's expertise in interpreting collective agreements.

The Court of Appeal concluded the board's decision was not patently unreasonable and restored its ruling.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding he breached his duty of confidentiality to his former employer by exploiting information related to a government contract.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the information regarding the contract's renewal and the client's needs was not confidential, as it was widely known and solicited by the government.

Furthermore, the appellant's knowledge of his own skills and qualifications, which he provided to a competing bidder, was his own information and not the property of the respondent.

The action was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent 34 months' notice (30 months base plus 4 months Wallace damages) for wrongful dismissal.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in awarding a base notice period in excess of 24 months without exceptional circumstances, reducing the base period to 24 months.

The court upheld the 4-month Wallace extension due to the appellants' bad faith conduct during the dismissal.

The court also varied the prejudgment interest award, holding that interest should be calculated on an installment basis rather than a lump sum basis for the period during which salary continuance payments were made.