Employment and Labour Law - OCA

The parties appeared before the Court of Appeal to determine issues of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest following an appeal regarding a wrongful dismissal.

The appellant argued against pre-judgment interest due to the respondent's delay in issuing the claim and the fact that the appeal judgment awarded no more than the original termination offer.

The court rejected these arguments, noting the appellant had use of the funds, and awarded pre-judgment interest.

The court also declined to vary the agreed post-judgment interest rate of 4 percent, finding the delay in obtaining Employment Insurance repayment information was avoidable.

Costs of the attendance were awarded to the respondent.

Two police officers brought a civil action against their police services board, chief, deputy chief, and another officer, alleging unfair treatment, negligent investigation, and other torts arising from disciplinary actions taken against them.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding that the courts lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, confirming that the Police Services Act and the applicable collective agreement form a complete code for police discipline, precluding civil actions for disputes whose essential character relates to discipline.

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 plaintiffs resigned from their employment and withdrew the commuted values of their pensions from the OMERS pension plan.

Shortly after, the plan was amended to provide benefit enhancements from surplus funds.

The plaintiffs sued the plan administrator for negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty, alleging it failed to inform them that benefit enhancements were under consideration.

The trial judge found the administrator liable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the administrator's appeal, holding that a pension plan administrator does not have a duty to disclose potential plan changes that are merely under consideration, as such information is speculative and not highly relevant or material.

The appellant teachers' federation appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of an arbitration award.

The grievance concerned a teacher returning from pregnancy leave who was assigned to teach a different subject than she taught before her leave.

The arbitration board held that under s. 43(1) of the Employment Standards Act, the teacher's 'position' meant a teaching position at the same school in a subject for which she was qualified, not necessarily the exact same subject.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the Divisional Court's finding that the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness, and that the arbitration board's interpretation was reasonable given the principal's statutory power to assign classes under the Education Act.

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 summary judgment dismissing his counterclaims for a declaration that he owned certain technology.

The motions judge found that the appellant had assigned any rights in the technology to his employer and that his employment contract precluded him from claiming ownership upon termination.

The Court of Appeal agreed that there was no genuine issue for trial and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her statement of claim, which challenged a settlement reached before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the Grievance Settlement Board, regardless of the fact that the appellant's union would not support her.

The appellant, a woman of colour, sued her former employer for constructive dismissal, alleging racial discrimination.

The motions judge struck paragraphs of her statement of claim that alleged systemic discrimination against employees of colour, holding that only discriminatory acts directed specifically at the appellant could be pleaded.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding no principled basis to distinguish between direct discrimination and systemic discrimination for the purpose of pleading discriminatory conduct to support a wrongful dismissal claim.

The plaintiff obtained a judgment for wrongful dismissal and unpaid commissions against his former employer, Westsun Show Systems Inc. Without attempting to execute the judgment, he brought a second action against the parent company's directors and officers, and former officers of the employer.

The trial judge found several directors liable for the wage debts and held a corporate representative personally liable for the costs of the first trial under the oppression remedy.

The Court of Appeal allowed the defendants' appeals, finding no duty on the corporate representative to disclose the lack of directors to an adverse party, and holding that the plaintiff failed to meet the strict statutory preconditions and limitation periods for directors' liability under the Manitoba Corporations Act.

The plaintiff's appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing his claim for constructive dismissal and finding him liable for competing with his former employer using confidential information.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant's transfer to a new position did not constitute a material change or constructive dismissal.

The Court also upheld the finding of liability for breach of duty regarding confidential information.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding that a purported temporary lay-off was in fact a termination of the respondent employee's employment without notice or cause.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, noting they were fully supported by the evidentiary record.

The Court also rejected the appellant's argument regarding an implied term of dismissal without notice, as it was not pleaded or supported by evidence, and affirmed the five-month notice period as reasonable.

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 was employed by the respondent law firm for 21 years.

She was initially given 18 months' working notice of termination due to the firm's financial difficulties.

Three weeks later, the respondent unilaterally amended the notice, dismissing her immediately with six months' pay in lieu of notice.

The trial judge found the first notice was binding but awarded only 12 months' pay.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding there is no functional difference between working notice and pay in lieu of notice, and the employer was bound by the initial reasonable notice of 18 months.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's finding that he breached his fiduciary duty to his former employer by accepting a project from a client.

The respondent cross-appealed the calculation of damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellant used knowledge acquired through his position to successfully bid for the work, and that the damages calculation was fact-driven and entitled to deference.

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 a trial judgment dismissing his wrongful dismissal action.

The trial judge found that the appellant's conduct, which included deceiving his supervisor and using the employer's resources to pursue his own business opportunities, constituted cause for dismissal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact or application of legal principles.

The appellant Union appealed a Divisional Court decision quashing an arbitrator's award that allowed the Union to initiate individual teacher workload complaints before a Workload Resolution Arbitrator.

The Court of Appeal held that the arbitrator's decision was patently unreasonable because the collective agreement contained clear words limiting access to the arbitrator solely to individual teachers.

The agreement's specific provisions regarding the grievance process demonstrated that the parties did not intend for the Union to initiate complaints at the arbitration stage.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant employer appealed a motion judge's order regarding the plaintiff employee's claim for long-term disability benefits.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge erred in finding the collective agreement's benefits terms fell within Brown & Beatty's third category.

The language of the collective agreement and Letter of Understanding clearly incorporated the benefits plan into the collective agreement, meaning disputes over entitlement must be submitted to arbitration.

The appeal was allowed and the civil action against the employer was dismissed.