Rayaz Khan

Five grievors were terminated by Metrolinx for engaging in workplace sexual harassment contrary to the employer's policy.

The union grieved the terminations.

Following an earlier arbitration award that was quashed by the Divisional Court and upheld by the Court of Appeal, the matter was remitted to a new arbitrator.

Proceeding via mediation-arbitration under section 50 of the Labour Relations Act, the arbitrator found the grievors' conduct egregious and deserving of significant discipline.

However, considering their apologies, regret, and seniority, the arbitrator concluded termination was excessive and ordered reinstatement with four- and five-week suspensions substituted.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1587, upholding the Divisional Court’s decision to quash an arbitration award that reinstated five employees dismissed by Metrolinx for sexual harassment.

The Court found that the arbitrator made legal and factual errors, including failing to recognize Metrolinx’s statutory duty to investigate workplace harassment even in the absence of a formal complaint, and improperly relying on myths and stereotypes about victim behaviour.

The matter was remitted to a new arbitrator for reconsideration.

Following a successful defamation trial where the self-represented plaintiff was awarded $850,000 in damages, the court assessed costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, noting both parties engaged in contesting peripheral issues.

The plaintiff was awarded $11,535.16 for transcripts and a $7,000 counsel fee for the trial, but claims for hotel stays, motion filing fees, and book binding were denied.

The court provisionally fixed costs at $18,535.16, allowing the plaintiff ten days to submit proper invoices for previously incurred legal fees.

The plaintiff, a former top-performing mortgage development manager, sued the defendant bank for defamation after he resigned during an investigation into fraudulent mortgage applications.

The bank reported him to the Canadian Bankers Association's SIFT database, falsely stating he had knowingly submitted fraudulent documents, which caused three prospective bank employers to withdraw job offers.

The court found the bank failed to prove the defence of justification, as there was no evidence the plaintiff knew of the fraud.

The defence of qualified privilege also failed because the bank lacked grounds to report him under the database's criteria, and its failure to retract the alert for seven years constituted malice.

The plaintiff was awarded $850,000 in total damages, including $200,000 in punitive damages.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision reinstating five employees who were terminated for engaging in a sexually harassing WhatsApp group chat.

The arbitrator had found the investigation flawed because the targeted employee refused to file a formal complaint and the conduct occurred off-duty.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, holding that the arbitrator's reasoning was unreasonable as it failed to recognize the employer's statutory duty under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to investigate incidents of workplace harassment regardless of whether a formal complaint is filed.

The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an order for the defendant to produce a further and better affidavit of documents, specifically non-privileged documents related to a corporate reorganization or restructuring, regardless of their temporal origin.

The defendant argued the motion was premature, suggesting the issues could be addressed during examinations for discovery.

The court found that the documents were relevant based on the pleadings and that the defendant had previously agreed to their production.

The motion was granted, and the defendant was ordered to serve a sworn, comprehensive affidavit of documents.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in her wrongful dismissal claim against the defendant hospital.

The central issue was whether the termination clause in her employment agreement was enforceable.

The court found that several 'for cause' provisions in the agreement violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) by falling short of the narrow 'wilful misconduct' exemption.

Applying Waksdale, the court held that these illegal provisions rendered the entire termination clause unenforceable, despite 'saving' language in the contract.

The plaintiff was awarded 4.5 months of reasonable notice under common law.