Employment and Labour Law - ONCA

The appellant, a unionized employee of the Ontario Public Service, commenced a civil action against her employer and union alleging workplace discrimination and harassment.

The motion judge dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the essential character of the dispute arose from the collective agreement and was therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator or the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

On appeal, the appellant argued that section 46.1 of the Human Rights Code granted the court concurrent jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that section 46.1 does not override the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitrators where the dispute arises from a collective agreement and no independent civil wrong is pleaded.

The appellant, a police officer and union president, was suspended by the Chief of Police following criminal charges.

He brought an action for damages and declaratory relief, alleging Charter breaches and misfeasance in public office.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute fell under the collective agreement or required judicial review.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the collective agreement expressly did not apply to the appellant during his union secondment, and that an action is a permissible route to seek relief in the nature of judicial review, particularly when damages are claimed.

The self-represented appellant appealed the dismissal of his action and his motion for summary judgment against his former employer.

The motion judge had called on the appellant first, advised him to focus on the cross-motion, and then reserved her decision without calling on the respondent to make submissions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding a want of procedural fairness.

The appellant was entitled to hear the respondent's oral submissions on the cross-motion and have an opportunity to respond to them.

The order was set aside without prejudice to either party renewing their motion.

The appellant employer terminated the respondent's employment and made several termination-related payments, including a mistaken payment in November 2018.

The parties subsequently attended mediation and executed minutes of settlement requiring the employer to pay $150,000 'in addition to amounts already paid'.

The employer's representatives at mediation were unaware of the November payment and later sought to deduct it from the settlement amount.

The motion judge enforced the settlement, finding no ambiguity and no fraud by the respondent regarding the employer's unilateral mistake.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the subjective, uncommunicated knowledge of the employer's representatives did not form part of the factual matrix for contractual interpretation.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent 24 months' notice and bonus entitlements for wrongful dismissal.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in interpreting the employment contract, resignation, and release in the context of a commercial share sale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable errors of law in the motion judge's contractual interpretation, upholding the finding that the release of ESA rights was void, and affirming the 24-month notice period and bonus entitlement.

The appellant, a police officer, was criminally charged following an SIU investigation into a training exercise explosion.

After the charges were stayed, he sued his fellow officers and the police board for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office, alleging they intentionally misled the SIU.

The motion judge dismissed the claim, finding it was a workplace dispute governed exclusively by the collective agreement and the Police Services Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the essential character of the claim involved an independent criminal investigation outside the workplace, and therefore the court's jurisdiction was not ousted.

The appellant employer was convicted on appeal of an offence under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a workplace fatality.

Before sentencing, the appellant brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, which the appeal judge summarily dismissed.

The Court of Appeal held that while the appeal judge had jurisdiction to hear the Charter application, he did not err in exercising his discretion to summarily dismiss it, as constitutional issues should only be raised for the first time on appeal in exceptional circumstances where there is no prejudice to the parties.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The appellant was awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $12,300.00, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The costs of the summary judgment motion below were ordered to be fixed by the trial judge at the end of the proceedings.

The employee worked for a company for 36 years before its assets were sold to the appellant.

The appellant hired the employee, but laid her off after one month.

The employee sued for wrongful dismissal and was granted summary judgment based on the motion judge's finding that her employment was continuous under the common law, mirroring the Employment Standards Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that summary judgment was inappropriate due to material factual disputes regarding the terms of her new employment.

The Court clarified that at common law, a sale of a business results in constructive dismissal, and while a successor employer must give some recognition to prior service when assessing reasonable notice, it is not a seamless continuation of employment.

During a legal strike, graduate student teaching assistants engaged in picketing and protests.

Following the strike, the university disciplined them under the Student Code of Conduct.

The students sought judicial review, arguing that under the Back to Class Act and the Labour Relations Act, a labour arbitrator had exclusive jurisdiction over discipline related to strike activities.

The Divisional Court agreed and quashed the university tribunal's decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the university's appeal, confirming that the specific, strike-ending legislation mandated that any dispute concerning discipline for activities during the strike be determined through grievance arbitration.

The appellant sued for wrongful dismissal and moved for summary judgment, arguing the termination clause in his employment contract was void for violating the Employment Standards Act.

The respondent conceded the 'Termination for Cause' provision was void but argued the 'Termination with Notice' provision was valid and severable.

The Court of Appeal held that employment agreements must be interpreted as a whole.

Because the 'for cause' provision violated the ESA, all termination provisions in the contract were rendered unenforceable, regardless of whether the employer relied on the illegal provision or if there was a severability clause.

The appeal was allowed.

The parties settled a wrongful dismissal action on the eve of trial for $75,000 plus costs.

When the defendants failed to pay, the plaintiff successfully moved for judgment under Rule 49.04.

The defendants appealed, arguing the settlement lacked essential terms regarding the allocation of damages and should be voided on public policy grounds due to the plaintiff's litigation tactics.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the settlement terms were clear and there was no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretion to enforce it.

The plaintiff's cross-appeal seeking substantial indemnity costs was also dismissed.

The appellant was employed under a five-year fixed-term contract and was terminated without cause after 23 months.

The motion judge found the early termination clause unenforceable and awarded common law reasonable notice damages subject to mitigation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that where an employment contract is for a fixed term and lacks an enforceable early termination provision, the employee is entitled to the salary and benefits for the unexpired portion of the term.

Furthermore, the court held that there is no duty to mitigate damages arising from the early termination of a fixed-term contract.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order enforcing the terms of a settlement agreement regarding the respondent's claim for amounts owed upon termination of employment.

The appellants argued the settlement should not be enforced due to the respondent's alleged post-termination breach of a non-compete clause.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the alleged breach was not part of the settlement and that a boilerplate preamble could not reasonably be interpreted to include it.

The appellant sued the Government of Nunavut in Ontario for wrongful dismissal.

The motion judge found no real and substantial connection to Ontario and that Nunavut was the more appropriate forum.

On appeal, the appellant argued Ontario was a 'forum of necessity' because returning to Nunavut would trigger severe mental illness symptoms.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that the appellant's mental health challenges did not rise to the exceptional level required for the forum of necessity doctrine, noting that accommodations could be sought in a Nunavut court.

The appellant, a gas station operator, appealed the dismissal of its counterclaim against its former landlord and two former employees.

The employees had secretly negotiated a head lease for the gas station premises after the appellant's lease expired and it refused the landlord's terms.

The trial judge dismissed the appellant's claims for breach of fiduciary duty and inducing breach of contract as statute-barred, finding the appellant knew of the employees' actions more than two years before filing the counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's factual findings on discoverability and the lack of intent by the landlord to induce a breach of contract, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant company appealed a trial decision finding that two kitchen cabinet installers were dependent contractors entitled to 26 months' reasonable notice upon termination.

The appellants argued the workers were independent contractors because they had performed some work for a competitor in the two years prior to termination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that exclusivity must be assessed over the full history of the relationship, during which the workers had served the company almost exclusively for over 25 years.

The Court also upheld the 26-month notice period, finding that the workers' age, length of service, and economic dependence constituted exceptional circumstances justifying an award beyond the usual 24-month cap.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an Information and Privacy Commissioner order.

The order required the Ministry to disclose records containing the full names of Family Responsibility Office (FRO) employees to a requester.

The appellants argued that disclosure posed a health and safety risk to the employees and conflicted with a prior Grievance Settlement Board order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Commissioner reasonably concluded that the evidence did not establish a reasonable expectation of harm to the employees, and that the disclosure order did not conflict with the prior grievance settlement.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding it had constructively dismissed the respondent employee by transferring him from Vice President of Operations to Purchasing Manager.

The trial judge awarded 24 months' notice and found the employee was not required to mitigate by accepting the new role.

The Court of Appeal upheld the constructive dismissal finding and the notice period.

On mitigation, the Court held that while the principle of efficient breach might apply, the employer failed to trigger the mitigation duty because it did not offer the employee a clear opportunity to work out the notice period after he claimed constructive dismissal.

The appeal was dismissed.

The corporate defendant was found liable at trial for terminating the contracts of dependent contractor taxi drivers without notice.

The trial judge also found the individual directors liable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the finding of liability against the individual directors, holding that they were not parties to the contract and there was no evidence of tortious conduct such as intentional interference with economic relations or inducing breach of contract.