Employment and Labour Law - OCA

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee $28,000 for wrongful dismissal, representing seven months' notice including Wallace damages.

The employer argued it had just cause to terminate the employee for dishonesty and breach of policy, and challenged the Wallace damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's conclusion that the employer failed to prove dishonesty.

The Court also upheld the Wallace damages, noting the employer's blatant disregard for the employee by terminating her two weeks before she was to give birth.

The appellants were employed by the Toronto Humane Society.

They repeatedly refused to implement the Society's new policies regarding the intake of stray animals, citing concerns about the legality of the policies.

After multiple meetings and legal opinions confirming the Society's authority, the appellants continued to refuse to perform their duties and were terminated.

The trial judge dismissed their wrongful dismissal actions, finding they were dismissed for cause.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, concluding that the appellants' unequivocal refusals to perform essential job duties amounted to a repudiation of their employment contracts, which the employer was entitled to accept.

The appellant appealed a decision declining court jurisdiction over a dispute regarding long-term disability benefit entitlements.

The motions judge concluded that the essential character of the dispute arose from the interpretation, application, or administration of a collective agreement, meaning it must be resolved by arbitration.

The Court of Appeal agreed, noting that the long-term disability plan explicitly barred actions against the insurer and had to be read in conjunction with the collective agreement for unionized employees.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant municipality sought to replace its full-time firefighters with volunteers and passed a by-law purporting to terminate the collective agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decisions of the arbitrator and Divisional Court, finding that the collective agreement continued in effect beyond its expiry date due to the freeze provision in the Fire Protection and Fire Prevention Act, 1997.

The court held that the municipality could not unilaterally terminate the agreement, as the Act requires the consent of the Ontario Labour Relations Board on joint application, rendering the by-law of no effect.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding the respondent was entitled to incentive stock units upon early retirement pursuant to an Incentive Agreement.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by applying the principle of contra proferentem without first attempting to resolve the ambiguity through other interpretive factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly identified the agreement as a contract of adhesion and properly considered the factual circumstances and commercial purpose before interpreting the impugned words.

The respondent's cross-appeal on damages was abandoned and dismissed.

The appellants, executors of the estate of a deceased nurse, sued her former employer for negligence in administering a group life insurance plan, resulting in the denial of enhanced benefits.

The trial judge found the employer negligent but dismissed the action, concluding the dispute was governed by the collective agreement and thus subject to arbitration.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the essential character of the dispute did not arise from the collective agreement, which only required the employer to pay premiums and provide an information booklet.

Judgment was granted in favour of the appellants for the value of the enhanced benefits.

The appellant appealed a trial decision dismissing his claim for constructive dismissal.

He argued that his employer's requirement that he work closing hours without additional pay, and the delayed payment of his disability benefits, constituted a fundamental breach of his employment contract.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the appellant's working hours were to be adjusted and compensated, and that the delay in benefits payment was an administrative error that was ultimately rectified.

The appellant, a unionized employee, sued his former employer and union executive for allegedly misrepresenting the terms of an early retirement agreement.

The employer and union successfully moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that the dispute arose from the interpretation and application of the collective agreement and the union's duty of fair representation.

Under the Weber principle and the Labour Relations Act, such disputes fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of an arbitrator or the labour relations board, not the courts.

Constable Favretto was dismissed by a Hearing Officer for discreditable conduct after pointing his firearm at a fellow officer while in a dissociative state caused by workplace harassment.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services varied the penalty to a demotion, finding the Hearing Officer failed to properly weigh provocation and rehabilitation.

The Divisional Court reinstated the dismissal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the officer's appeal, holding that the Divisional Court failed to properly apply the reasonableness standard of review to the Commission's decision, which was supported by a tenable explanation.

The appellant appealed an order staying his employment action in Ontario on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in concluding the parties had agreed to a choice of law clause in an unsigned document.

Applying the test for the most appropriate forum, the Court held the respondents failed to demonstrate that Quebec was clearly the more appropriate forum, noting the employment contract was carried out in Ontario and the proximity of Ottawa and Blainville minimized convenience factors.

The appeal was allowed and the stay set aside.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action, arguing that the employer's unilateral changes to his employment contract invalidated the termination clause.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the changes were not fundamental and had been condoned by the appellant.

Furthermore, the Court found that the appellant was estopped from claiming more than six months' notice, as he had accepted the six months offered at termination without objection.

The plaintiff, a real estate agent, was wrongfully dismissed and subsequently defamed by his former employer on two separate occasions.

The trial judge awarded damages for defamation but failed to distinguish between the first slander, which was statute-barred, and the second actionable slander.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the global damages award and substituting an award of $10,000 for the actionable slander.

The Court upheld the trial judge's discretionary costs order, which denied costs to a successful co-defendant and required the unsuccessful defendant to pay the plaintiff's entire costs, due to the defendants' failure to make timely documentary disclosure.

The plaintiff's cross-appeal regarding reimbursement of advertising fund contributions was dismissed.

The plaintiff appealed a Divisional Court decision setting aside a motion judge's order that appointed judges and judicial officers as referees to determine individual class members' claims under the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a court cannot appoint a judge or judicial officer to conduct a reference under s. 25(1)(b) of the Class Proceedings Act without first obtaining the authorization of the Chief Justice or her designate under s. 14(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The consent of individual judicial officers is not an adequate substitute for the Chief Justice's overarching responsibility for judicial assignments.

The appellant, a long-term employee of an insurance brokerage, was constructively dismissed when her new employer unilaterally transferred her to an office an hour away and impugned her work quality when she objected.

The trial judge awarded damages for constructive dismissal, finding an implied term that she would work in her original location.

The Divisional Court overturned this decision.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, restoring the trial judge's decision, holding that it was open to the trial judge to conclude that the location of the workplace was an essential term of the employment contract.

The appellants, representing Ontario provincial court judges, appealed the dismissal of their application for judicial review of the provincial government's decision to reject the recommendations of the Fourth Triennial Provincial Judges' Remuneration Commission regarding judicial pensions.

The government had accepted binding salary recommendations but rejected the non-binding pension enhancements, citing fiscal restraint and the fact that the 28% salary increase already significantly increased pension values.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the government's post-report retention of an actuarial firm to cost the proposals was appropriate, and that the government's reasons for rejecting the pension recommendations met the 'simple rationality' standard established by the Supreme Court of Canada in the P.E.I. Reference.

The appellants, correctional officers, brought an action against their employer and senior management alleging that a covert operation to stop contraband poisoned their work environment and caused physical and emotional harm.

The defendants successfully moved to strike the claims (except defamation) on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the essential character of the dispute engaged the employer's obligation under the collective agreement to provide a safe workplace, and therefore the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of an arbitrator.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice regarding an employment contract and a Leave of Absence Agreement.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conclusion and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $5,000 to the respondent.

The defendants appealed a motions judge's answers to questions posed under Rule 21.01(1)(a) regarding a pension plan surplus following the sale of a business division.

The appeal concerned only the answers relating to administrative costs and expenses.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the questions were inextricably linked to other issues that the motions judge had correctly directed to trial, such as the effect of statements in pension booklets and reliance on them.

The Court set aside the answers and directed that the issues regarding administrative costs and expenses also proceed to trial.

The appellant appealed an order striking out his statement of claim for lack of jurisdiction.

The motions judge found that the essential character of the appellant's claims fell within the scope of the grievance and adjudication process under the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the applicable collective agreement, and had already been decided by a labour adjudicator.

The Court of Appeal agreed, applying the Weber framework, and dismissed the appeal, also rejecting the appellant's arguments regarding procedural fairness, Charter violations, and bias.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her contract and defamation claims against the University of Waterloo and Gillham.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the employment contract was for a fixed term with no promise of renewal, and that there was no misrepresentation.

The Court also upheld the dismissal of the defamation claim, finding no error in the trial judge's refusal to find malice.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of $10,000 awarded to the respondents.